Module 2

Understanding Second Language Acquisition

This module is divided into the following sections:

Outcomes

Author of this module 

2.0   Introduction

2.1  Meeting the challenge of second language acquisition
2.1.1  The second language learner’s challenge
2.1.1.1  Klein’s four tasks for the learner
2.1.1.2  Looking at interlanguage
2.1.1.3  Typical features of interlanguage
2.1.2  The primacy of lexis
2.1.3  Grammaticization and overgeneralization
2.1.4  Stages of interlanguage development
2.1.4.1  Stages of development for negation
2.1.4.2  Other examples of staged interlanguage development
2.1.4.3  Interpreting stages of development
2.1.4.4  Teachability and processability
2.1.5  Using chunks or formulaic phrases
2.1.5.1  Chunks, segmentation and internal grammar
2.1.6  Cross-linguistic influence
2.1.6.1  The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
2.1.6.2  Transfer and markedness
2.1.6.3  Form-function conflicts
2.1.6.4  Cross-linguistic influence in interlanguage vocabulary
2.1.6.5  Psychotypology
2.1.7  Summary

2.2  Learning processes in language learning
2.2.1  Skill learning
2.2.1.1  Components of a skill
2.2.1.2  Language as skill
2.2.1.3  Automatization
2.2.1.4  Restructuring
2.2.1.5  Declarative and procedural knowledge
2.2.2  Concept development
2.2.2.1  Induction and deduction
2.2.2.2  Concept development in language learning
2.2.3  Implicit acquisition
2.2.3.1  Behaviourist accounts
2.2.3.2  The Universal Grammar explanation
2.2.3.3  The role of simplified input
2.2.3.4  The critical period for language acquisition
2.2.4  Summary	

2.3  SLA and approaches to language teaching
2.3.1  Three established approaches
2.3.1.1  Grammar-translation
2.3.1.2  Audiolingualism
2.3.1.3  The Natural Approach
2.3.2  Krashen’s Input Model
2.3.3  Challenges to Krashen’s model
2.3.3.1  Is ‘just understanding’ enough?
2.3.3.2  The importance of interaction
2.3.3.3  Can’t learning influence acquisition and vice versa?
2.3.3.4  The Noticing Hypothesis
2.3.3.5  The value of simple rules
2.3.4  SLA-linked teaching approaches: current proposals
2.3.4.1  Long’s focus on form, not focus on formS
2.3.4.2  DeKeyser’s skill-based approach
2.3.4.3  Skehan’s task-based instruction
2.3.5  Conclusion

2.4	Commentary on reflective tasks

2.5	Appendix: Universal Grammar

2.6	Glossary

2.7	References

2.8	Further reading 

2.9	Assessed tasks

Outcomes

At the end of this module, you should be able to:

•	demonstrate understanding of the challenges facing the second language learner;

•	identify the typical characteristics of interlanguage, ie the language produced by second language learners, and use your understanding of how interlanguage develops to provide an informed analysis of the interlanguage of one of your learners;

•	explain how second language knowledge and skill typically develops;

•	identify the different learning processes which are involved in second language learning;

•	reflect on the theories which have been put forward to explain language learning in general;

•	reflect on language teaching approaches and their grounding in Second Language Acquisition (SLA);

•	use your understanding of the different kinds of learning involved in second language learning to analyze and evaluate second language teaching approaches.

Author of this module

Elspeth Broady is Principal Lecturer in the School of Languages, University of Brighton. With initial training as a teacher of French and EFL, she now teaches Second Language Acquisition, Psycholinguistics and Materials Design on undergraduate and postgraduate language teacher education courses. She has produced several textbooks, videos and CD-ROMS for language learners, and has worked as a consultant for BBC and Open University language courses. Her teacher education projects include work on video, ICT and learner autonomy for the Council of Europe and Tempus programmes. Her research interests are in the area of learning strategies, learner autonomy and learners' use of explicit grammatical knowledge.

2.0  Introduction
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is about how people learn second languages, not in the first instance about how to teach them. After all, learning a second language does not necessarily involve instruction: generations of immigrants into another linguistic culture have simply picked up the language of their host community. Yet most people recognize that for adults to develop any functional competence in a second language, particularly outside the target language community, organized instruction (be it in a classroom or from a self-study course) is probably necessary. 
	One of the problems we face in SLA is figuring out to what extent the same or different processes are involved in ‘picking up’ a language and in trying to ‘learn’ it. What is clear to language teachers, for example, is that learners do not simply ‘learn’ and produce what they are taught, no matter how well-organized and motivating the teaching may be. It could be that the same constraints which influence uninstructed second language learners also influence instructed learners. SLA, then, sets out to investigate what those constraints might be and the variety of processes that might be involved in the development of a second language. This is clearly of relevance to language teachers:
The successful educator must be one who understands the complexities of the teaching-learning process and can draw upon this knowledge to act in ways which empower learners both within and beyond the classroom situation.
(Williams and Burden,1997: 5)
There is occasionally confusion in SLA with the terms acquisition and learning. Sometimes, the term ‘acquisition’ is used exclusively to refer to the process of ‘picking up’ a language implicitly, while the term ‘learning’ is reserved for formal instruction. However, it is quite possible that even in formal instruction, we engage in implicit processes akin to ‘picking up’. Further, if acquisition and learning are distinguished in this way, we need a superordinate term for second language development. Because of this, we have used acquisition and learning more or less interchangeably to refer to the process of second language development. Where a distinction is required, the terms implicit and explicit may be used. The abbreviation SLA is used to refer to the field of study.
	SLA is a relatively new field of research that has developed since the 1960s,  drawing on different perspectives and research methodologies from Linguistics, Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology and Educational Theory. This module is inevitably selective in its coverage. If you want more detail on the key current research questions in SLA, refer to Robinson, P. (1998) Issues in SLA Research: an Introduction to the Pacific Second Language Research Forum Symposia. (http://www.als.aoyama.ac.jp/pacslrf/slaissue.html) 
	SLA has its own specialist terminology. All terms are fully explained when they are first introduced. If at any time you need to check up on a particular meaning, refer to the Glossary  (section 2.6) at the end of the module. 

2.1  Meeting the challenge of second language acquisition

2.1.1	The second language learner’s challenge
2.1.2	The primacy of lexis
2.1.3	Grammaticization and overgeneralization
2.1.4	Stages in interlanguage development 
2.1.5	Using chunks or formulaic phrases
2.1.6	Cross-linguistic influence
2.1.7	Summary

2.1.1  The second language learner’s challenge
How easy is it to ‘pick up’ a second language from scratch? Based on an example from Klein (1986: 59–60), Reflective task 1 and our subsequent discussion invites you to reflect on what such a process might involve. If you know some German already, Reflective task 1 may require a bit of imagination!

Reflective task 1

You are on a visit to Germany. You do not know a single word of German. You are having breakfast in your hotel. The couple at the next table are speaking German. One of them turns to you and says something which sounds like this:

axk9n@nzi:mi:rma:l bIt@daszaltsraIC@n

What could this possibly mean? (If your knowledge of German is minimal, note down your guesses. If your knowledge of German is good, think about how a non-German speaker could possibly make sense of it.)

What do you think you could learn by being exposed to everyday language use in this way?

Now refer to ‘Commentary’. 

2.1.1.1  Klein’s four tasks for the learner
Klein summarizes the second language learner’s task under four headings:

Analysis: as illustrated above, learners have to segment the stream of accoustic signals into constituent units (‘words’) and have to try to ‘make sense’ of these units by mapping them onto features of the context, eg [daszalts] or [zalts] = ‘salt’, rather than ‘could I have’. 

Synthesis: having identified some ‘words’, learners have to learn how these ‘words’ fit together and change, depending on the relations they have with other words, eg das precedes many nouns, but other words eg der, die, des, also occur in that same position. In fact, German changes articles (eg  das, der, die, den, des, dem, all equivalent to ‘the’) depending on the gender of the noun (masculine, feminine or neuter) and its case (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative).

Embedding: learners also have to learn how to use language appropriately in a communicative context. In communicating, we often leave elements of our message unstated because we believe our interlocutors can identify them from a shared understanding of context, eg the German hotel guest in the example above might have said Das Saltz, bitte (The salt, please) meaning ‘I would like the salt: could you pass it to me, please?’. So what elements can be left out? What elements must be specified? In what different ways is language adapted in different contexts?

Matching: finally, in order to develop an accurate command of the target language, learners need to continuously compare their version of it with that of more proficient users (eg native speakers). 

In addition, lots and lots of practice is required to enable fluent use of the language. 

2.1.1.2  Looking at interlanguage
So how do second language learners – both those learning in a classroom and those in a naturalistic setting – go about meeting the challenge of second language acquisition? In order to answer this question, researchers in SLA have typically studied the product of second language acquisition, in other words the language that learners produce. Learner language studied in this way is referred to as interlanguage, which implies both the language used and the knowledge behind it. Reflective task 2 presents some examples of interlanguage which display typical features.

Reflective task 2

The picture below was used by SLA researchers to collect spoken data from both native and non-native speakers.

1.	First of all, compare an English native speaker's description of the picture and a 	non-native speaker's description.

English native speaker
OK, there's a kind of fat old woman with a bun on (ah) on her head, like towards the back of her neck, and she has a hat on her head and she's got a checkered skirt on with some tennis shoes and she's holding a leash to a dog who's barking at a bald man with a moustache and a big nose who's wearing a bowtie and he's got a black umbrella in his hand and the dog ...I don't know, it's kind of like one of those big dogs, like, kind of, like a greyhound, maybe, I don't know. And he's got, looks like a, not really a saddle, but maybe a sweater or something on that's got all these checkers, it's just on his back. And he's got a black collar around his neck and ... the people's eyes are just circles, they don't really have any pupils. And the man has a suit coat on, a jacket type thing. And the woman's got her mouth open and the man's mouth is shut.

English non-native speaker (L1 French)
Um. I see a man, a dog, and an no I see a woman, a dog and another man.  And ... the man uh look like Scottish man uhh ... and uh (that is) and similarly between two mens um the dog um want to bite the a-another man. Um.. The second man uhh has that an umbrella. And um ... the woman is um as toward as the man. The woman is speaking; the man don't speak. Um ... The ... the dog is between the woman and the man. Ahh he look, it it look uh angry. About the man. Um. I think the man don't appreciate the dog. Um. I don't know if this woman know this man. Um Perhaps they want to talk, but they have problem with this dog. Because this dog is not quiet. And.. I'll stop.

2.	Now, study the transcriptions of anglophone speakers’ descriptions in either French, German or Spanish. What features of these recordings mark them out, in your view, as being produced by non-native speakers?

L2 French
Il y a une grande femme avec un chien. La femme porte un chapeau, une robe et chaussures, je pense que la femme est vieux aussi. Son chien est fâché et son chien ouvre son bouche. Il y a aussi un homme, un homme avait peur du chien, et le homme porte une ....

L2 German 
Wir haben eine picture mit zwei Leute und eine Hund und die Frau hast eine Hund mit eine, uh fehlen dieses, ich weiss nich dieses und der Hund ist (laughter) nah dem Mann. Und der Mann hat einen ... on ... ich was .. ist der Mann hat. Der Mann sind in der nahe der Hund und der Hund, oh jé, ich weiss nicht dieses. Von der links ist eine Frau und die Frau hat einen Hut und nicht in Seite, in Mitte ist einen Hund und rechts ist einen Mann. Und das ist alles, ich kann nicht sehen alles.

L2 Spanish
Pués, hay una mujer con el perro y hay otra hombre ... ummm .... La mujer lleva .. una sombrera umm una chaqueta y falda ... zapatos... El pelo de la mujer umm es lacio ... El perro umm está gritando al hombre. Y el perro lleva algo, pero yo no se qué es ... el hombre tiene una corbata pero no es larga; es ... umm ... es .. muy corto, es un bowtie, y está trayendo una umm no recuerdo la palabra, pero umm es para ... para la lluvia .. para no sacar la lluvia y umm el hombre no tiene pantalones: es muy extrano, no? No tiene zapatos también y umm el perro no le gusta al hombre, en mi opinion. Y ... um la mujer tiene un umm leash ... no se la palabra en espanol, pero umm el perro es suya  no y suyo y ... La mujer parecía como ella está diciendo algo pero no se ... Bueno es todo.

(Reproduced from Sorace et al, 1994)

Refer to ‘Commentary’ for feedback. 

2.1.1.3  Typical features of interlanguage
Interlanguage speakers typically prioritize meaning and will communicate first and foremost with whatever lexical resources they can mobilize. This may mean using approximate terms, L1 terms or terms from another known language, or paraphrasing.
	Interlanguage speakers (depending on their proficiency) typically need to simplify the grammar of the language. This means that morphological features such as tense markings, determiners and agreement marking of the target language may be missing or variable: often, one form will be overgeneralized to all contexts (eg don't speak, don't appreciate; einen Hut, einen Hund, einen Man)

	Influence from the interlanguage speakers' L1 is often present in: 
•	lexical areas, such as 'borrowing' (eg picture, bowtie), using 'cognates' (appreciate) and the literal translation of phrases (ich weiss nicht dieses);
•	reinforcing simplification of the TL grammar, eg the French learner may have missed que in Je pense ø la femme est vieux and failed to select the feminine form of the adjective because of influence from English;
•	confusion over use of grammatical forms which appear similar to the L1 but which are used differently: eg the English learner’s overuse of this may be due to different usage of ce (this) and le (the) in his L1 French; the Spanish learner's confusion over suya and suyo may be caused by differences in how English and Spanish possessive adjectives change according to gender (either the gender of the noun being possessed, as in Spanish, or the gender of the possessor, as in English).
We shall now investigate some of these features in more detail and attempt to explain how and why they arise.

2.1.2  The primacy of lexis

Reflective task 3

If you had to communicate the following message using five words only, which words would you choose, and why? [Assume that 6.30pm counts as one word]

As I said yesterday, I'm arriving by train in Brighton tomorrow evening at 6.30pm.

What kind of problems might arise if we communicated in this telegraphic way all the time?

Refer to Commentary. 

Emphasis on lexical items seems to be fairly consistent in the early interlanguage of naturalistic learners. It is a key feature of what Perdue (1993) and his fellow researchers refer to as the Basic Learner Variety, based on their investigation into interlanguage development among various groups of immigrants for the European Science Foundation. But it is also a feature of the French interlanguage produced by Myles et al’s (1999) UK school learners of French. Examples from both these research projects are given below:

Target language glosses have been added

English naturalistic learner
Punjab, I do agriculture, farm ... before, I go, seventy-five, in the arab country, Afghanistan to Turkey, to Antakia, to Lebanon, after there, go Syria, yeah, Jordan, go India ....
In the Punjab, I worked in agriculture, on a farm. Before that, in seventy-five, I went to the Arab countries, then from Afghanistan to Turkey, to Antakia, to Lebanon. After that, I went to Syria, yeah, to Jordan and then I went to India.

French naturalistic learner
Après, allé le voiture, la commissariat, le commissariat, "comment s'appelle", "pourquoi entré la France, la montagne" parce que moi, le travail, l'Espagne  'y en a la carte de séjour d'Espagne.
Après ça, je suis allé dans la voiture au commissariat. Au commissariat, ils m'ont demandé: "Comment vous appelez-vous? Pourquoi êtes-vous entré en France par la montagne?"... parce que moi, pour pouvoir travailler en Espagne, il y avait (il fallait?) la carte de séjour espagnole/d'Espagne.

German naturalistic learner
Ich morgen a Espana y sage bei dir: zuruck Espana, eine botella de conac bei dir
Ich fahre morgen nach Spanien und bringe dir dann eine Flasche Cognac mit. 
(Perdue, 1993)

French classroom learners
un famille euh en vacances euh un grandemère ... ma mère et trois enfants ... euh deux garçons et une fille euh à la bord de lac
Secondary learner of French after 1 year (Myles et al, 1999: 69)

quelles activités ... à la Belleville?
tu et tu et moi visiter le cinema?
je aller à la musée samedi?
où la piscine?
Secondary learners of French after 2 years (Myles et al, 1999: 69)

At the early stages of second language acquisition, then, learners only seem able to process and produce parts of the language to which they are exposed. It is particularly interesting to note the difficulties of Myles et al’s school learners in producing grammatical questions in spontaneous speech, because we can safely assume that such questions had been modelled in class. (We will be looking further at Myles et al’s research in section 2.1.5.) 
	In interlanguage, even when a grammatical feature does start to appear, it will often be used inconsistently, at least in terms of the target language grammar. Learners in fact often demonstrate their own form of consistency.

2.1.3  Grammaticization and overgeneralization
As learners gradually start to pay some attention to grammatical items, they seem to work out ‘rules’ or ‘regularities’ which they then use to generate new language: they develop an internal grammar. This is not usually a conscious, intentional process. It just seems to happen, in both naturalistic and instructed learners. We’re not entirely sure how, nor how the explicit teaching of grammar influences it.
	Unfortunately for learners, grammars are full of variation and apparent irregularity (for example, form-function conflicts, which we discuss shortly in 2.1.6.3). Thus, language learners do not learn to apply grammatical features all at once, and they seem to simplify the grammatical system in ways which make sense to them – and which may not reflect either what they have been taught, assuming they have received instruction, or the precise grammatical structure of the target language. This process of gradual integration of the morphological and syntactic regularities of the target language is known as grammaticization. 
	Evidence of this process appears when learners overgeneralize grammatical features of the target language, in other words, when they use a grammatical feature in a context where it is partly right, but partly wrong. For example, English children acquiring their first language often produce such overgeneralized forms as the plurals childrens and mens and the past verbs flied, goed and even wented. Second language learners make similar overgeneralization errors, which are in fact testimony to their acquisition.

Reflective task 4

Working with whichever languages you are familiar with, try to identify which grammatical feature has been overgeneralized and how.

1	There are three womans
2	He get ups early
3	Il a offri un cadeau à sa mère
4	C'est le livre que j'ai lisé l'année dernière
5	Il y a beaucoup de festivaux en France l'été
6	C'est un homme vieil
7	Das ist nein kaputt
8	Nein, ich bist keine müde
9	Da war eine Party und war ich spät nach Hause.

Now refer to ‘Commentary’. 

2.1.4  Stages of interlanguage development
As we mentioned in 2.1.3, second language learners build up grammatical knowledge and control of the target language gradually. In this section, we review evidence which shows the similar stages of grammatical development that learners from different language backgrounds and different learning contexts go through.

Reflective task 5

If a Spanish learner of English says to you:
	I no understand
what would you think was the origin of this error?

If a German learner of English says to you:
	I no drink milk
would you attribute this error to the same origin? What alternative explanation could you offer?

Refer to ‘Commentary’ for feedback. 

2.1.4.1  Stages of development for negation
The following stages of development for negation in English and German have been found among learners from different language backgrounds and different learning contexts (Ellis, R 1994: 99–101):

Stage 1   External negation 
The negator – no, not in English, nein in German – is placed outside the statement:
no bicycle, no do it
nein helfen, nein spielen Katze.

Stage 2   Internal preverbal negation 
The negator is placed ‘inside’, after the subject but before the main verb: 
I no like it. It no bicycle
ich das nicht mach.  Ich keine lerne Karate

At this point, learners of English and German have to face some grammatical complexity. In English, the negator not is placed after an auxiliary verb do and in front of the lexical verb: I do not (don’t) like cats. Learners of English initially simplify the problem of the auxiliary by treating don't as an alternative to no and not, producing utterances such as He don’t like it, I don’t can do it. 

Learners of German have to work out the distinction between the negator nicht, for verbal negation, and kein for negation of noun phrases. At the internal preverbal stage, nein ceases to be used so frequently, but learners simplify their new task by using nicht and kein randomly at first. 

Stage 3   Postverbal negation
Gradually, English learners work out that the negator not has to be placed after the inflected verb, be it do or another auxiliary. Similarly, German learners develop post-verbal negation using nicht, and are gradually able to distinguish kein from nicht: 
I can’t play that one, She didn’t believe me
Ich gehe nicht ins Kino, Ich habe keine Schwester

External and preverbal negation occur consistently in the early interlanguage, as well as in early child language, suggesting that they may be inherently ‘easier’ to acquire than postverbal negation (see Cook, 1993: 43). However, the learner’s L1 may still have some influence. Those who have preverbal negation in their first language (eg Spanish and Italian speakers) are likely to take longer to move on to postverbal negation. It is as if their L1 knowledge is reinforcing a natural stategy. (For extended discussion, see Braidi, 1999: 25–28; Cook, 1993: 36–43 and Ellis, R, 1994: 99–101). 

2.1.4.2  Other examples of staged interlanguage development
English:
In English, a consistent order has been found for the acquisition of the grammatical morphemes (eg –ing, plural –s, possessive –s, etc) among child and adult learners of English with different L1s (Dulay and Burt, 1973, 1974, and Bailey, Madden and Krashen, 1974, reviewed in Ellis, R, 1994: 91). For example, the morphemes –ing, plural –s and the –s which marks the copular verb (It’s good) are acquired well before morphemes such as the past tense marker –ed, the 3rd person singular present –s  (He works) and the possessive –s (The dog’s bone). Similarly, the grammar of questions in English is acquired in predictable stages. For more on stages of acquisition in English, see Lightbown and Spada, 1999: chapter 4.

German:
German word order seems to develop in predictable stages (Pienemann, Johnston and Brindley, 1988, reviewed in Ellis, R, 1994: 103). At Stage 1, learners use only a single, ‘canonical’ word order (usually SVO: subject – verb – object). At Stage 2, adverbs start to be moved to the front of the clause, but learners show no sign of inverting the subject and verb, normally required by the fronted adverb (the so-called Verb-second rule). At Stage 3, learners are able to move non-finite verb forms to the end of the clause, while changes to the canonical SVO order finally appear at Stage 4, as learners master inversion of subject and verb after adverbials (the Verb-second rule). Finally, a further change to the canoncial SVO order is mastered, with finite verbs being correctly placed at the end of subordinate clauses.

Stage 1	Die Kinder spielen mi’m Ball	
Stage 2	Da Kinder spielen	
Stage 3	Alle Kinder muss die Pause machen	
Stage 4	Dann hat sie wieder die Knocht gebringt	
Stage 5	Er sagte dass er nach Hause kommt	

French:
Further evidence that variation from a basic word order is initially avoided by learners comes from Devitt’s (1993) study of children acquiring L2 French in France. In French, the basic word order is SVO. However, object pronouns (eg te, lui, le, la) are placed before the verb. Devitt’s learners simplified their task by initially placing the object pronoun after the verb. It then took them a while to differentiate the different forms of personal pronouns: stressed pronouns (toi, lui, elle) are acquired before unstressed (te, le, la), and direct pronouns (le, la, les) before indirect (lui, leur).

Stage 1	Je donne toi … pomme	
Stage 2	Je te vois	
Stage 3	Je veux lui
Tu vois elle?	
Stage 4	Je le parle et il me voit
Tu les dis ….	
Stage 5	Je lui dis …
Je les vois
Je leur dis...	

Devitt (1993) also found stages of development for French verb morphology. Consistent with our picture of early interlanguage, his subjects started out with very little morphology. Two verb forms dominated early interlanguage: a form corresponding to the present tense stem, eg achète and a form ending in the sound /e/ (written as é), eg acheté). Gradually, this é-form came to be used for past events with the other form being used for present descriptions and actions, and past descriptions. Two imperfect forms j’avais (I had) and j’étais (I was) then appeared, but with no evidence of any other imperfect tense conjugations. The children then integrated auxiliary verbs to form the compound perfect tense and began to differentiate between the two auxiliaries required for this. By Stage 4, odd pluperfect and imperfect forms were starting to appear. This development of tense marking seems to be reflected in more recent studies with instructed adult learners (see Howard, 2002).

Stage 1	Very few verbs, little morphology
All forms: achète/acheté
Je allé … je vois … il acheté	
Stage 2	Je vais …. il va (present/future)
Je allé,  Je acheté (past events, perfect)
J’achète (past descriptions, imperfect)	
Stage 3	Je vais aller… (future)
J’avais, j’étais (imperfect)
Je allé (perfect)	
Stage 4	Je allé, j’ai allé, sh’uis allé, j’ai acheté (perfect)
J’avais, j’étais, j’acheté (imperfect)
J’avais fait, j’étais allé (pluperfect)	

2.1.4.3  Interpreting stages of development
So what does this evidence of stages of development in second language acquisition tell us? It seems to suggest a universal process. Pienemann claims that ‘sequences of acquisition may be caused by the ease with which certain structures can be processed by the mind’ (Pienemann, 1989, cited in Cook, 2001: 29).

Is there a parallel with L1 acquisition?
Krashen and his research colleagues, Dulay and Burt (reviewed in Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982: 211–14) compared stages of development in first and second language acquisition of English (negation, question formation and grammatical morphemes) and found that there were broad similarities but also differences. They did not offer much in the way of explanation for their findings, although as we shall see (see section 2.3.2), Krashen has put forward a model which claims second language acquisition is essentially driven by a process which is ‘similar, if not identical, to the way in which children develop ability in their first language’ (Krashen, 1982: 10)

What is the impact of teaching?
Research (reviewed by Ellis, R, 1994: 628–30) confirms that stages of development are very similar, whether learners have received instruction or not. So does this mean that teaching has no effect on interlanguage development in these areas? Not quite… In general, studies looking at classroom learners have found that they often overproduce particular structures which they have been taught, compared to naturalistic learners. For example, Weinert’s (1987) learners of German were initially able to produce correct negative phrases from memory after teaching, but when memory lapsed, their utterances resembled those of naturalistic learners. Similarly, Lightbown’s (1983, 1987) francophone learners of English in a Canadian classroom tended to overuse constructions which had been taught (eg the present continuous tense), but with time, this overproduction disappeared and they reverted to forms reminiscent of naturalistic learners. Pica (1983), meanwhile, comparing classroom and naturalistic learners of English from Spanish-speaking backgrounds, found that the classroom learners were more accurate on some forms (eg plural -s) but less accurate on others (eg V+ing). Investigating the acquisition of German word order rules, Ellis (1989) found that English classroom learners showed a similar sequence of development to naturalistic learners, but seemed to make more progress on a complex rule than seemed typical of naturalistic learners. 
	Rod Ellis’s (1994: 635) conclusion is that while taught learners may develop along the same route as naturalistic learners, teaching may help speed up the rate at which they acquire features of the grammar, and their accuracy. It may also be that different learners benefit in different ways from teaching, and that different grammatical structures are more or less amenable to teaching. Pienemann (1984), for example, reports that as a result of instruction on the inversion rule in German, one learner acquired the rule effectively while others did not, and teaching on the use of the copular verb (sein) had no effect on any of the learners. Ellis (1984, cited in Ellis, R, 1994: 624) similarly reports that communicative teaching of wh-question forms to ESL learners in Britain had no clear impact on accuracy of production for the group as a whole, but some individuals did progress significantly.

2.1.4.4  Teachability and processability
From such evidence, both Pienemann and Rod Ellis propose what they refer to as a Teachability Hypothesis, ie teaching will only have an effect if the learner is developmentally ready to acquire the grammatical structure in question. Pienemann has more recently developed his ideas into what he calls a Processability Model. He argues that we process different linguistic elements with varying ease. For example, he claims that typically, learners’ attention will be drawn in the first instance to elements which occur at the beginnings and ends of language units (eg a clause or sentence). This might explain why learners of German first discover that adverbials can be placed at the beginning of a clause and then that non-finite verbs must move to the end. It may also explain why learners tend to prefer external negation (see section 2.1.4.1). Movement of words into positions within the sentence is less ‘perceptually salient’ (less easy to notice, less easy to process) so this might explain why verb inversion (the Verb-second rule in German) is acquired after verb separation (the movement of non-finite verbs to the end) (see section 2.1.4.2). Thus, learners process salient features first, and only then are able to process less salient ones.
	Increasingly, the role of cognitive factors – the way the mind processes information, the way we allocate our limited attention – are being investigated in SLA. For example, rather in the same vein as Pienemann, the American researcher Richard Schmidt has claimed that what we are able to notice in the L2 input determines what we are then able to 'pick up' implicitly (see section 2.3.3.4). What is quite clear to all teachers and learners of second languages is that some elements of the target language are more difficult to pick up than others. The problem is understanding – theoretically – why this should be. 
	Learners themselves often find short-cuts around grammatical complexity by learning frequently heard phrases as ‘chunks’, ie as if they were long words to be accessed directly from memory, rather than involving grammatical computation.

2.1.5  Using chunks or formulaic phrases
Second language learners will often produce chunks of language or ‘formulae’ such as, [aId@n@u] (I don’t know), [kEsk@se] (qu’est-ce que c’est ) and [iChab@ge@n] (ich habe gern), well before they are able to operate the grammatical changes outside of the set phrases. It is as if they were treating these phrases as just long words. Weinert (1987) and Myles et al (1999) have investigated the extent to which UK school learners of German and French rely on chunks in the early stages of language learning. Reflective task 6 looks at their findings.

Reflective task 6

German
Weinert (1987), in a cross-sectional study of the acquisition of negation by Scottish secondary learners of German, found that:
	In Year 1, learners were producing quite a few utterances correctly distinguishing between nicht and kein, eg Ich spiele nicht gern Fussbal (V+ nicht) and Ich habe keine Schwester (kein + N). 
	They used kein in 50% of obligatory contexts and nicht in 75% of obligatory contexts.
	In Year 2, however, learners produced more incorrect utterances of the kind Ich habe nicht Katze* (nicht + N*) and Ich keine arbeitet (kein + V*). kein was ‘almost never supplied where required’, compared to 50% of cases in Year 1.
	They also produced more incorrect utterances with the nicht appearing before, not after, the verb, eg Zola Budd nicht spiele Fussball. The proportion of correct postverbal negations decreased from 90% in Year 1 to 60% in Year 2.

French
A similar finding emerged from the study by Myles et al (1999) of the acquisition of question forms by English secondary learners of French. They found that:
	Over the three years of the project (from Term 2 to Term 7 of learning French at secondary level), the number of questions without verbs produced by learners, eg quelles activités ø à Belleville, oú ø la piscine? in fact increased from 22% of all questions to 69%.

What explanation(s) can you offer for this apparent 'backsliding', highlighted in two studies of classroom-based second language acquisition based on different languages?

Refer to for Commentary. 

2.1.5.1  Chunks, segmentation and internal grammar
According to Weinert (1987) and Myles et al (1999), early instructed learners rely heavily on memorized chunks which only very gradually come to be ‘segmented’, that is, understood in terms of their component parts. As the chunks fade from memory, or if the known chunks don’t meet communicative needs, then learners are forced back on their internal grammar which cannot generate such grammatically complex language.
	Researchers have asked whether the use of chunks helps or hinders the segmentation process (what Klein refers to as ‘analysis’). The majority feel that learners do break down learned chunks and gradually internalize how the various constituent parts function. For example, Myles et al (1999) hypothesize the following sequence based on their data from school learners of French:

1	Unanalysed chunk	Comment t'appelles-tu	
2	Add a noun subject	Comment t'appelles-tu le garçon	
3	Replace 'tu' subject with a noun subject	Comment t'appelles la fille	
4	Replace reflexive pronoun	Comment s'appelle un garçon?	
5	Replace noun subject with correct pronoun	Comment s'appelle-t-il?	

However, even after three years' teaching, only one of their learners had consistently mastered Stage 5. As we have already suggested, segmentation and the development of an internal grammar take a long time, even with support from instruction.

Reflective task 7

Look at the following spoken examples of French and German interlanguage, all from instructed learners with limited proficiency. Dealing with whichever language(s) you are familiar with, offer an explanation of how the learner might have constructed his or her utterance. 

1.  Comment t'appelles-tu le garçon?		What's the boy called?
2.  Mon petit garçon ... où habites-tu?		Where does the little boy live?
3.  une famille j'habite un maison. 		The family lives in a house.
4.  Où est la gare l'église? 				Where is the church?
5.  What d'you doing, this boy? 			What is this boy doing?
6.  Wie alt dein Geburtstag?			When is your birthday?
7.  Q: Hast du eine Katze? 			Q: Do you have a cat?
     A: Nein, hast du eine Katze. 			A:  No, I don't have a cat.

Refer to Commentary. 

2.1.6	 Cross-linguistic influence

2.1.6.1  The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
Many people instinctively believe that interference from our mother tongue is a prime source of learner error; some believe that if the L1 could only be banished from the brain, then few errors would be made. Such assumptions informed the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, an influential view of second language learning strongly rooted in the behaviourist views of the 1950s and 1960s. This hypothesis stated quite simply that areas of difference between the target language and the first language will cause difficulty for learners, while areas of similarity will lead to ease of learning. This seems quite plausible. English learners of French frequently say Je suis quinze ans (I am 15), while French learners of English say I have fifteen years (J’ai quinze ans). But is it always the case that differences lead to difficulties? Reflective task 8  examines some language differences where the difficulty seems to be in one direction only. 

Reflective task 8

French
French and English differ on where object pronouns are placed in the sentence: 
English: all objects after the verb		French: object pronouns before the verb
I see the cats -> I see THEM		Je vois les chats -> Je LES vois

Assume the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis: 
(i)  What errors would you predict English learners will make on the placement of pronouns in French? 
(ii)  What errors do you predict French learners will make on placement of pronouns in English? 

Refer to commentary (French). 

German
German and English differ as to whether they allow both voiced (b,d and g) and unvoiced consonants (p, t and k) to occur at the end of a word: 
English allows both voiced and unvoiced consonants: wet (unvoiced) v. wed (voiced)
German only allows an unvoiced consonant at the end of a word. The German word Hand may be spelled with a final d, but that d is pronounced as /t/.

Assume the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis: 
(i)  How will English learners pronounce the German word Hand? 
(ii)  How will German learners pronounce the English word hand?

Refer to Commentary (German). 

2.1.6.2  Transfer and markedness
The evidence reviewed in Reflective task 8 partially goes against what is predicted by the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Interference from the L1 seems to be occurring in one direction, but not in another. In order to explain the German data, Eckman (1977, cited in Gass and Selinker, 1994: 96–97) appealed to a notion of markedness. A linguistic feature is said to be ‘marked’ in relation to another linguistic feature, when it is in some way ‘more unusual’ or ‘less basic’ in a given language or languages. He claimed that the voicing contrast in final consonants is a marked feature in that it is relatively rare in the world's languages. He proposed that learners avoid transferring marked elements from their L1, particularly when the target language has an unmarked form. 
	Thus, English is 'odd' in having a final voicing distinction, so English learners experience little difficulty in giving up this oddity in favour of a more basic language feature, ie final devoiced consonants. The poor German learners however find it very difficult to abandon their unmarked feature for our odd (marked) one! The same argument goes for the preverbal placement of French object pronouns. The unmarked word order of French is subject-verb-object, as it is in English. Thus, French learners of English should be happy to give up their 'oddity' to adopt the more 'basic' English form, while English learners have to overcome both the influence of their L1 and standard French word order to correctly place object pronouns.
	Markedness remains a rather fuzzy concept in SLA. However, it seems to help explain why transfer works in some directions but not in others. In Reflective task 9, we consider further data which shows that learners sometimes ignore their L1 knowledge in developing their interlanguage.

Reflective task 9

Look at the following data concerning conditional sentences in English, French and Dutch. All three languages are broadly similar in that they construct a conditional sentence by 'backshifting' to a simple past tense in the 'If' clause, and then using a conditional marker in the main clause.

	If-clause (subordinate)	Main clause
English	If I had (past) the money	I would (conditional) buy a car	
French	Si j'avais (past) l'argent	j'achete+rais (conditional) une voiture
Dutch	Als ik het geld HAD (past)	zou (conditional) ik een auto kopen

There is of course a difference in the way in which English and Dutch, on the one hand, mark the conditional by using a modal auxiliary verb (would or zou), while French marks it with a different ending on the lexical verb (achète+rais). There are also word order differences between Dutch and the other two languages.

Based on the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, and just focusing on the sequence of verb forms, would you predict that this would be a difficult or an easy structure for English learners of French, French learners of English, Dutch learners of French, Dutch learners of English, etc?

Irrespective of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, what would your prediction be? Easy or difficult? Why?

Refer to Commentary. 

2.1.6.3  Form-function conflicts
Kellerman (1989) argues that conditional sentences in these three languages are inherently complex for the human mind. There seem to be different form-function conflicts, where one form is mapped to two meanings or two forms are used for the same meaning. For example, while both parts of the sentence express the idea of conditionality, the verb is marked differently in each part. So two different forms apparently express the same function or meaning. Further, there is something particularly counter-intuitive about the if-clause verb: it carries past-tense marking when in fact the ‘time’ being referred to is ‘now’, albeit a hypothetical ‘now’, as in: If I had the money now .… Hence the past tense form appears to express two different functions: occurrences in the past, and occurrences in a hypothetical present, and this latter usage is of course the more ‘marked’. 
	L2 learners instinctively seem to try to map one grammatical form to one meaning function. But in all languages there are areas of grammar where that nice, easy mapping simply does not happen, and it is in these areas that difficulties, irrespective of the L1 pattern, arise for learners.
	As you have seen from the data we have reviewed in this section, difficulty for learners cannot always be judged in terms of the L1. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that similarities between L1 and target language do help learners, and nowhere more so than in the area of vocabulary, but they can sometimes be something of a double-edged sword.

2.1.6.4  Cross-linguistic influence in interlanguage vocabulary
Vocabulary is an area of frequent transfer. Particular problems arise when the way the target language maps out words is different from that of the L1. For example, anglophone learners have problems distinguishing connaître and savoir in French, since English expresses both ideas with know. While similarity of vocabulary can help learners with general guesses at meaning, it can also hinder accurate usage – and sometimes cause considerable hilarity, as, for example, when English guests comment favorably on the lack of préservatifs (condoms, not preservatives) in French food, or German learners of English declare they wish to become a hamburger! (bekommen = to get).
	But it isn’t just the first language which influences vocabulary usage in a second. Singleton (1987) studied ‘Philip’, an anglophone student with a good knowledge of Spanish, as he learned French from scratch. Spanish had a stronger influence on Philip’s French interlanguage than his L1 English, as revealed in his phrase pour le matin, (Spanish por la mañana) instead of le matin, a case whether many English learners use dans le matin (in the morning).
	Scandinavian researchers, Sjoholm (1979) and Ringbom (1987), both reviewed in Ellis, R (1994: 328), investigated the influence of first and second languages more closely by studying learners of English in Finnish secondary schools. Finnish is the official language of Finland, but a significant part of the population are bilingual Finnish-Swedish, with a significant number having Swedish as their L1 or dominant language.

Reflective task 10

What conclusions can you draw from Sjoholm’s and Ringbom’s key findings below?

•	Finnish learners with Swedish L1 tended to do better in learning English than learners with Finnish L1.

•	Finnish L1 learners tended to make fewer errors due to cross-linguistic influence than Swedish L1 learners.

•	The cross-linguistic errors made by learners with	Swedish L2 tended to be 	triggered by their L2, rather than their L1 (Finnish).

•	The cross-linguistic errors made by learners with Swedish L1 tended to be triggered by their L1, rather than their L2 (Finnish).

Refer to Commentary. 

2.1.6.5  Psychotypology
Kellerman (1977) explained these phenomena by the principle of psychotypology. He argues that second language learners instinctively judge degrees of similarity between languages they know already and their target language. Where they perceive similiarity, they are more likely to transfer existing knowledge. In particular, they will borrow lexical items and will assume that similar sounding words have similar meaning. For example, Ringbom quotes a Swedish L1 learner using the word piggy to mean ‘refreshed’ in English. The learner had assumed that the Swedish word pigg (refreshed) could simply transfer into English with the simple addition of the –y adjective marker. Singleton’s Philip picked up on the French time adverbial depuis (since) and assumed it had the same meaning as the Spanish despues (after). In this case, there is probably greater similarity between Philip’s L1 after and the target language après, but Philip confirms Kellerman’s principle by preferring to draw on knowledge of a language perceived as more close to his target.

2.1.7  Summary
In this section, we have identified the complexity of the second language learner’s task and explored the ways in which learners typically go about it through examining interlanguage (ie the language learners produce and the assumed knowledge behind it). We have highlighted such features as:

•	the domination of lexical items in early acquisition, with grammatical features such as verb and noun morphology typically missing;

•	gradual grammaticization, illustrated by overgeneralization of grammatical regularities;

•	stages of development, in some areas of grammar, which are the same for learners from different backgrounds, irrespective of whether they have received instruction;

•	influence from knowledge of existing languages, but not always direct interference where there are differences with the target language.

Learners instinctively seem to draw on knowledge of existing languages, particularly those perceived as close to the target language. As teachers, we need to recognize that this can be a very positive strategy, even though it can also lead to some confusion and errors. But banning reference to other languages in the second language classroom, in particular the L1, seems to have little to commend it.
	The idea that learners will learn any grammatical structure we teach them, so long as we teach it effectively, also seems to be challenged by the SLA research. Internal grammar – as opposed to the knowledge of ‘chunks’ – takes time to develop and while teaching may speed up the rate at which learners move through stages of development, and their accuracy in certain areas of the grammar, it does not seem able to alter the route, at least in the key areas which have been researched.
	Thus, as teachers we need to understand that learners’ errors may not represent willful laziness or inattention, but often demonstrate the stage of development which they have reached. Full grammatical accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition are hard to achieve and seem to require a combination of different learning processes: lots of opportunities for the learner’s grammar to build up implicitly, practice of ‘chunks’ in order to increase fluency, but probably also explicit instruction as well.
	In the second section of this module, we set out to characterize the possible learning processes that might be involved in second language acquisition.

2.2  Learning processes in language learning

2.2.1	Skill learning
2.2.2	Concept learning
2.2.3	Implicit acquisition
2.2.4	Summary

Reflective task 11

What kind of learning is second language learning? To what extent do you think it is like:

1) learning to ride a bike or play the piano?

2) learning other ‘school subjects’ such as history?

3) learning a first language as a child?

Make some notes on these questions and then click here to continue 
1) will be discussed under 2.2.1; 2) will be discussed under 2.2.2; and 3) under 2.2.3.

2.2.1  Skill learning
Learning to ride a bike or play the piano are instances of skill learning:

Skill: the capacity for carrying out complex, well-organised, patterns of behaviour smoothly and adaptively so as to achieve some end or goal. 
(Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 2nd edition)

2.2.1.1  Components of a skill
A skill involves perceptual-motor components, often referred to as lower-order skills, and cognitive components, referred to as higher-order skills. To play the piano, for example, we first have to learn the perceptual-motor skill of hitting the keys with our fingers. Gradually we build up this skill, using the fingers to hit different keys fluently in different sequences. But at the same time, we need to activate the cognitive skill of reading musical notation, or of bringing to memory a particular melody in order to direct the movements of our fingers. We also need to pay attention to feedback, for example, wrong notes, and adjust our finger movements accordingly.
	We have to learn to integrate lower-order skills with higher-order skills. As we perform the perceptual-motor skills more automatically, with less conscious attention, we can start to assess our performance more carefully against some goal we want to achieve. For example, our goal may simply be managing to play the left hand and right hand parts together, or it may be to make our playing more expressive by introducing differences of pace and loudness. 
	In performing a skill, we constantly set and adjust goals, juggling competing demands for our attention. Experts at a skill do this effortlessly; it’s rather more problematic when skills are less proficient. If you are a regular (proficient) driver, you can probably drive while communicating effectively with a passenger. However, if your driving skills are not proficient, or you are trying to communicate in a second language you do not master, then doing the two things at the same time is likely to cause performance problems! 
	In developing a skill, then, we have to:
•	integrate a variety of subskills, both perceptual motor and cognitive (‘a complex, well-organised pattern of behaviour’);
•	develop fluent performance (‘carrying out behaviour smoothly’);
•	develop the ability to change our performance (‘carrying out behaviour adaptively’) depending on our goals.

2.2.1.2  Language as skill
Using language can be considered a skill because it has these features: 

•	Language use is goal-directed and involves prioritizing and selection
We select language and prioritize certain aspects of language performance depending on our goal, ie what we wish to communicate, to whom and in what way. For example, we may emphasize clear articulation when speaking on the phone to a non-native speaker. In conversation with a friend, we may use thingummy or whatsit to avoid interrupting the communication to search for a specific word. Conversely, in academic discussion, we may slow up our rate of speech in order to formulate our ideas more precisely.

•	Language use involves constant monitoring
We constantly assess how we are speaking and whether our message is being communicated. If we don't get the right feedback, aspects of our performance deteriorate. Most people, for example, find it hard to continue speaking if they do not have eye-contact with their interlocutor(s) which indicates successful 'reception'. Similarly, when we read or listen, we establish initial interpretations of the words we process and then monitor the incoming text for further confirmation of these interpretations.

•	Using language requires automatization of subskills
To use language, we have to learn to integrate a whole hierarchy of subskills from the lower-order perceptual motor skill of articulating words, to the higher-order cognitive skill of clarifying in our minds the idea we wish to communicate. In between we have to retrieve lexical items required from memory (the result of what Klein in section 2.1.1.1 calls ‘analysis’), integrate lexical items within appropriate syntactic structures, add appropriate morphological marking (Klein’s ‘synthesis’), check the meaning of what we are about to say and fit it effectively into the conversation (Klein’s ‘embedding’). While doing all of this, we have to monitor whether our listener has understood or not and on the basis of this information, plan our next utterance. (Klein mentions that second language learners also need to monitor what they say to see whether it matches what they hear native speakers saying – what he refers to as ‘matching’). Viewed in this way, it's surprising that anybody ever achieves fluency in any language! But, of course, in order to use language fluently, we have to automatize many of the lower-order skills, such that we are generally not aware of our movements of articulation, nor of searching for a word in memory, nor of adding morphological marking.

(For further discussion, see Johnson, 1996: 38–44.)

Reflective task 12

Think back to a skill you have learned (eg learning to use a word processor, learning to drive, learning a sport or learning another language).

Cast your mind back to the very first stages of your learning. How would you describe your first attempts at the skill? How did you feel? 

As you progressed in your learning, what changed? Did you experience the skill in the same way? Did you find that ‘things clicked’ after a while? What was different after that in your performance of the skill?

Make a few notes based on your own experience and then compare with Robert DeKeyser’s description of the process of automatization. 

2.2.1.3  Automatization

When typing, driving a gear-shift car or using a wordprocessor to edit a text, we perform a complex series of tasks very quickly and efficiently, without having to think about the various components and subcomponents of the action involved; sometimes we are even unable to think of them explicitly, and therefore we may have trouble visualising the keyboard or explaining to somebody else how to use a piece of software, even though – or rather just because – we use the key board or the software with great ease. 
Initially, though, we may have found typing, driving a gear-stick car or using a spreadsheet to be slow, tricky and tiring. The automaticity, that is the speed and ease with which we ultimately carry out these tasks, is the result of a slow process we call automatisation. 
Once this process has run its course, the chain of actions involved in automatized tasks can even become hard to suppress, as we experience when forced to shift from a querty to an azerty keyboard, from a gear-shift to an automatic car, or from one kind of accounting software to another. [...] 
The ultimate example of automaticity is probably our ability to use language… (DeKeyser, 2001: 125)

DeKeyser describes the initial stages of skill learning as ‘slow, tricky and tiring’. According to McLaughlin et al (1983) this is because the initial stages of skill acquisition require controlled processing of information, ie the brain has to pay conscious attention to lots of bits of new information in order to try to organize and retain them.
	As we practise, we move to more automatic processing. Our brains no longer have to devote conscious attention to the individual bits of information and behaviours that make up the skill. Somehow we manage to compress the information as we become more familiar with it: our brain’s representation of it becomes more organized. As lower-order subskills are thus ‘automatized’, so our conscious attention is freed up. In principle, this should allow us to focus on higher-order aspects of the task such as more careful monitoring and adapting to a wider range of goals. 

2.2.1.4  Restructuring
But according to McLaughlin et al (1983), mere repetitive practice is not enough for developing a complex, cognitive skill such as language. For sustained development to occur, we have to repeatedly reorganize or restructure the way in which we represent the information required for the skill:
[…] there is more to learning a complex cognitive skill than automatizing subskills. The learner needs to impose organization and to structure the information that has been acquired. As more learning occurs, internalized, cognitive representations change and are restructured. (McLaughlin et al, 1983:136)
Repetitive practice can only bring about automatization of the very specific subskill being practised (DeKeyser, 2001: 131). So, for example, repeating phrases in a foreign language (what we referred to earlier as chunks – see section 2.1.5.1) will certainly help you to utter those phrases, but not necessarily in the range of appropriate contexts. Nor will such practice alone help you to segment the grammar of the phrase. Automatization provides the potential for attention to be redirected to ‘imposing organization’ and ‘structuring information’, but it does not guarantee that this will happen. 
	Sometimes features of the environment in which we perform the skill may be strong enough to trigger restructuring of the knowledge we draw on to perform the skill (see McLaughlin, 1990). For example, the experience of not being understood in a second language may cause us to listen more carefully to native speakers and start to segment phrases we may earlier have automatized. We may start hearing ‘new’ features in the language input and work these into our internal grammar. (This is the process Schmidt (1990) refers to as ‘noticing’: see Reflective task 19 and section 2.3.3.4). This restructuring does not have to be an explicit, intentional process: it can often happen without us being strongly aware of it. But we may also need explicit feedback of some kind, for example, someone telling us what to do, helping to give us a new understanding of our task, and prompting us to pay attention to new aspects of our skill.
	But what kind of feedback helps? Part of the problem with explicit feedback on a complex skill is the difficulty of ‘explaining’ the skill in the first place. Taking explanations of grammar as an example, rules often appear to learners more complex than the particular language operation they are designed to explain.  Explanations of the behaviours required to perform a complex skill rarely translate easily into effective (or improved) performance of that skill. This may explain why many of us get so frustrated with the manuals written for the use of computer software!

2.2.1.5  Declarative and procedural knowledge
Cognitive psychologists explain this conundrum by referring to the difference between declarative knowledge (knowledge which we can state, such as ‘The 3rd person singular present simple tense form of the English verb ends in -s’ or ‘Paris is the capital of France’) and procedural knowledge (the knowledge in our brains that underlies the performance of a skill, such as swimming or driving a car, which often we cannot state). Much of our procedural knowledge, it seems, may build up from declarative knowledge that we are able to automatize through practice: leading researchers in this field claim that declarative knowledge is ‘a major avenue for the acquisition of procedural knowledge’ (Anderson and Fincham, 1994 cited in DeKeyser, 1998: 48). However, this is not necessarily the only avenue for developing procedural knowledge: we seem able to ‘pick up’ some skills implicitly, ie just from observing others performing them and from practising ourselves. 
	Is using a second language such a skill? To the extent that there are examples of people ‘picking up’ second languages implicitly with little teaching, it must be. But many would also see second language learning as involving declarative knowledge: language use is based on a complex system of rules (a grammar) and a huge repertoire of items (vocabulary). In these respects, maybe learning a second language is like learning other ‘school subjects’ like biology and history.

2.2.2	 Concept development

2.2.2.1  Induction and deduction
Learning history and biology involves declarative knowledge; establishing facts, categorizing these facts in some way and then attempting to explain why they are way they are. What is involved here is concept development, ie the development of categories for making sense of our world and theories for predicting how things will behave. We use our concepts to identify phenomena, but we also change these concepts in the light of the new phenomena we discover, or because we start to view phenomena differently. Our concepts define what we perceive, but what we perceive also should define our concepts. Concepts are useful cognitive tools because they allow us to organize information such that we can retain it and use it more efficiently. 
	We can develop concepts implicitly without conscious awareness just by picking up and generalizing patterns from our experience. This is usually based on the learning process we refer to as induction. For example, a learner who has had a lot of exposure to a language may induce or ‘work out’ a grammatical rule, such as the German ‘Verb-second’ rule, without ever being aware of doing so. 

‘It’s Gestern bin ich in der Schule gegangen ... I don’t know why ... it just sounds right.’

We may also engage in inductive reasoning explicitly, when we deliberately try to find a concept or category to explain certain ‘facts’. Explicit inductive reasoning might go something like this:

‘OK, I’ve just noticed .... every time words like Heute, Am Nachmittag, Um zwölf Uhr come at the beginning of the sentence, the verb comes immediately afterwards. So after Gestern, I’m going to put the verb.’

But we may also work through explicit deduction, that is, using a rule or law we have learned to predict how particular phenomena will behave:

‘OK, so it says here that the in German sentences, the verb comes second… so if there is an adverb at the beginning of the sentence, the verb and the subject have to be inverted. So Gestern is an adverb, so I have to invert the subject and verb.

2.2.2.2  Concept development in language learning
It seems fairly obvious that understanding – implicitly or explicitly – how grammar works requires concept development. Vocabulary development also requires concept development as we map out the meanings of new items of vocabulary, eg between pendule and horloge in French, both expressed by clock in English. And it also helps if we have clear conceptual representations of the key tasks we need to perform, particularly those which are complex, such as writing an academic essay. 
	All of these are areas which language teachers may need to address explicitly. While some learners are able to develop a wide range of second language concepts through implicit induction, other learners are not and therefore need our help. Furthermore, making existing implicit concepts explicit seems to help in the development and extension of those concepts. While implicitly induced concepts can be used quickly and easily in the performance of a skill (in this, they constitute procedural knowledge), they may be limited in their scope. If they remain implicit, they may ‘fossilize’, such that we cease to be able to restructure them to take account of ‘new’ phenomena.
	An example of this is highlighted by Broady and L’Huillier (2002) They found that advanced students of French often relied on implicit induction in selecting the correct article for a translation task. In particular, students seemed to associate use of the partitive article (du, de la, des) with food and drink nouns in object position. This is a reasonable induction, since the partitive article is usually used with the objects of verbs of eating and drinking (J’ai mangé du poulet - I ate some chicken; J’ai bu du vin - I drank some wine). However, this induction also led them to use the partitive article with food and drink objects of liking/disliking verbs (eg J’aime du* café – I like coffee). Since these verbs imply generic reference, the definite article (J’aime le café) is required in French. Students who were able to check their implicit induction against explicit deduction, by referring explicitly to known rules of French grammar, were able to correct their erroneous productions.
	This raises issues about the relative value of implicit and explicit learning in second language development. Reflective task 13 sheds further light on this.

Reflective task 13

Green and Hecht (1992) asked secondary German learners of English to correct grammatical errors in test sentences, and then explain the rule behind the correction. 

The researchers were interested in: 
1.	the extent to which these learners could produce accurately the rules they had been taught on several occasions during their secondary schooling;

2.	the extent to which there was a relationship between ability to produce an accurate rule and ability to produce an accurate correction.

The key results were as follows:
•	In only 46% of the test items were learners able to produce an accurate rule to correct a particular error, even though they had all been taught the rules.

•	While accurate rules were produced for only 46% of the test items, 78% of the test items were corrected accurately.

•	In 97% of cases where an accurate rule was given (46% of cases overall), the error was corrected accurately.

What conclusions can you draw from this study for the question: should formal (explicit) grammar be taught? Why? Why not?

Refer to Commentary. 

2.2.3	Implicit acquisition
Although we talk about ‘learning’ to talk and ‘learning’ to walk, we probably recognize that the process is very different to ‘learning’ to ride a bike or ‘learning’ history. Walking and talking seem to ‘just happen’. We do not intend them to happen; most of the time we are unaware that they are happening; we cannot really explain what is involved. Learning to ride a bike or learning history, on the other hand, requires intention, and usually explicit learning: they are generally taught, and not instinctively ‘acquired’. So what explanations have been offered to explain subconscious, implicit language acquisition?

2.2.3.1  Behaviourist accounts
Early behaviourist accounts (see Ellis, R, 1994: 81) acknowledged that first language learning did not involve conscious intention or understanding of language form. They assumed that children developed their first language through endless repetition of language they heard around them. Adults would then provide feedback and reinforcement to ensure that they produced language correctly. But research on first language acquisition showed that children don’t just automatize a repertoire of learned phrases. They also manage to induce some kind of internal grammar on their own, and as any parent will know, they often don’t pay attention to adults’ feedback, whether explicit as in the first dialogue below or more implicit as in the second. 

Child:	Nobody don’t like me
Mother:	No, say ‘nobody likes me’
Child	Nobody don’t like me
		[8 repetitions of this exchange]
Mother	No, now listen carefully; say: ‘nobody likes me’
Child	Oh! Nobody don’t likes me.
(McNeill, 1966: 69, cited in Gass and Selinker, 1994: 61)

Child	My teacher holded the baby rabbits and we patted them.
Adult	Did you say your teacher held the baby rabbits?
Child	Yes.
Adult	What did you say she did?
Child	She holded the baby rabbits and we patted them.
Adult	Did you say she held them tightly?
Child	No, she holded them loosely.
(Cazden, 1972: 92 cited in Gass and Selinker, 1994: 61)

In fact, it seems that adults rarely correct children’s grammar, even if they do correct socially inappropriate language use (eg ‘Say please’) and inappropriate vocabulary use (eg ‘That’s not a microphone – that’s a necklace’). Children seem to build up their internal grammar through implicit induction, by subconsciously working out the patterns of the grammar on their own.
	But is this an entirely plausible explanation, given the complexity of human grammars? In section 2.2.1, we sketched out the challenge facing second language learners. The challenge facing children is similar, if not greater given their less sophisticated cognitive powers. Just to remind yourself of that challenge, Reflective task 14 offers you an opportunity to try your hand at induction of some language patterns.

Reflective task 14

Exercise 1
1) 	Look at the list of French nouns and their articles. They are not presented in any particular order, and it does not matter if you don’t know what they mean.
la station		le potage		la rage
le rendement	l’enseignement 	la correction
la passion		la cage 		le fondement
le garage		la liberté		le visionnement
l’action		la plage 		l’appartement
la coopération	le passage		l’éternité
la nationalité	l’irritation		l’ornement		
			 
2)	Now complete the following blanks before these French-like nonsense words.
	__  trivernement		__  éborage		__  iroment
	__  tage				__  ranté		__  uration
	__  métoration			__  lavorage		__  vission

Exercise 2
1)	Now look at the following data in English:
John is happy to please -  he is happy to please his boss
John is eager to please - he is eager to please his boss

2) 	Based on the pattern, complete the following sentence:
	John is easy to please: he is _____________________

3)	What do you notice? 

What conclusions do you draw from doing these exercises?

Refer to Commentary for feedback. 

2.2.3.2  The Universal Grammar explanation
While it seems plausible to argue that some of the basic rules for the allocation of French gender to nouns can be worked out implicitly through induction, this may be less plausible in the case of more complex features of language, such as the difference between eager to please and easy to please. The functioning of many grammatical structures is in fact not clearly and consistently demonstrated in language use, particularly to children. Further, in using language, we omit elements or use grammatical forms wrongly. How can children be expected to make the right generalizations?
	This realization led the linguist, Noam Chomsky, to claim that the input to children was simply insufficient or, in his words too ‘impoverished’, to explain how children arrive at a full internal grammar of their language. He therefore hypothesized that children must come into the world with some kind of universal mental template which allows them to construct language, despite the limitations of the input. All children need from the input is information to enable them to select the required universal building blocks for their particular language. These hypothesized universal building blocks are referred to as Universal Grammar. 
	This is not to say that a language cannot be constructed of anything other than the universal building blocks; rather that such anomalous structures would be the exception in language. These would have to be learned by children through implicit induction, but the language acquisition process of the child would nevertheless be greatly simplified.
	If you want to know more about Universal Grammar, go to the Appendix, section 2.5. Otherwise, continue to section 2.2.3.3.

2.2.3.3  The role of simplified input
However, researchers have challenged Chomsky’s claim that language input to children is impoverished by showing that adults in fact simplify the way they use language to children. When speaking to children, we generally articulate more clearly, we talk about things which the child can see and feel, and we ‘recast’ (implicitly correct) and ‘expand’ on the child’s utterance, as shown in the examples below. 

Sophie:	That one broke
Mother	Oh, when did that happen?
Sophie	Muffy step on that
Mother	Who stepped on that?
Sophie	Muffy
Mother	Muffy stepped on it.

Kathryn	(picks up red bean bag in the shape of a frog) Santa Claus.
Mother	Santa Claus? That's a frog, honey, that's not Santa Claus. That's a frog, red frog
Kathryn	Frog (puts frog on car) sits
Mother	Yes, he's sitting down, that's right.

 (Peccei, 1994: 81, 85, 86)

It has been argued that these simplifications facilitate language acquistion. There is evidence to suggest that when adult and child focus on the same thing, and there is linguistic interaction involving the adult recasting and expanding the child’s utterances, language acquisition is promoted. However, there is also research (eg Ochs, 1982) showing that not all cultures modify language to children in this way; in some cultures, adults appear to engage in far less linguistic interaction with young children than in the white middle-class anglophone environments which have been the main focus of language acquisition research – and yet, these children still acquire their first language. So while the typical form of child-directed speech (at least as far as Anglo-Western societies are concerned) may be helpful to language acquisition, it cannot be considered essential. Input there must be, but it is not clear of what kind. For a detailed review of this issue, see Pine (1994).
	The debate about whether human beings are equipped with a pre-program for constructing language continues currently, although Chomsky’s claim is largely assumed by British and North American linguists. There are some important challenges, eg Terrence Deacon’s fascinating book (Deacon, 1997: chapter 4).
But even if we assume the Universal Grammar hypothesis for first language acquisition, can we assume that it is available for second language acquisition by adults? Here the consensus seems to be: no, except insofar as our first language provides us with a model of a language constrained by Universal Grammar.

2.2.3.4  The critical period for language acquisition
One reason for casting doubt over the direct availability of Universal Grammar for adult second language accquisition is evidence that there is a critical period for language acquisition. After puberty, it seems, effortless and successful acquisition becomes less likely:
[…] language acquisition might be like other biological functions. The linguistic clumsiness of tourists and students might be the price we pay for the linguistic genius we displayed as babies, just as the decrepitude of age is the price we pay for the vigor of youth.  (Pinker,1994: 296)
Evidence for a critical period comes from the unfortunate children, such as Genie (Curtiss, 1977, cited in Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 20) who were denied access to language input during the normal acquisitional period. Genie was 'rescued' from shocking deprivation at the age of 13 and despite the best efforts of linguists and psychologists to develop her language in a supportive environment, her language after five years showed little evidence of normal first language acquisition. Use of grammatical forms was inconsistent, there was much use of formulaic speech (‘chunks’), and certain syntactic features always found in normal acquisition were missing (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 20). In fact, the following examples of her speech resemble early interlanguage:

Mike paint
Applesauce buy store
Neal come happy; Neal not come sad
I like elephant eat peanut

Studies of second language learners suggest a strong advantage for those learners starting before puberty at least in an environment where the second language is used on a daily basis. However, in standard instructed environments, young children appear to do significantly worse than either adults or adolescents (see Lightbown and Spada, 1999). 
	It seems, then, that children, either because they have access to Universal Grammar or for some other reason, are particularly well adapted to ‘pick up’ language without conscious awareness. This ability, however, appears to diminish in adults. This is not to suggest that effective second language learning in adulthood is impossible: far from it. Rather, adults are rarely able to acquire a second language to native speaker levels of competence. There are a number of case studies of adult second language learners who do (see Skehan, 1998: 218–22), but it seems that such adults require very powerful implicit induction skills and memory to pick up on the full range of structures which represent mature grammars.

2.2.4  Summary
In this section, we have explored different learning processes:

Skill development involves gradually automatizing either declarative knowledge provided through explicit learning or knowledge acquired through implicit induction (‘picking things up’). We automatize through practice. However, in the course of acquiring and perfecting a complex skill, we need to restructure our knowledge to take in new elements we may have missed, and to be able to extend our skill to different contexts. We seem to need some kind of feedback – explicit or implicit – to trigger this restructuring process.

Concept development can be either explicit or implicit; we can be taught concepts, which we then use deductively, or we can induce concepts from our experience. Knowledge which is implicit has the advantage of being speedy to use, but may be difficult to review and modify, while explicit knowledge can provide information that is important for accurate performance, but may be too cumbersome to use easily and effortlessly.

Child language acquisition appears extraordinary in that it does not involve a strong explicit (‘taught’) element: in other words, development of the complex concepts of the language system seems to happen almost entirely through implicit induction. Furthermore, children are able to successfully automatize this knowledge without relying on extensive explicit feedback. One explanation for the rapidity and effortlessness of first language acquisition is that children are helped by a mental template for grammar (a Universal Grammar), which adults seem not to be able to access with such ease. It may be that there is a critical period for effortless language acquisition.

As we have indicated in our discussion, it seems likely that second language acquisition involves aspects of all these types of ‘learning’. We will now turn to examine how these different theories of learning have influenced practical approaches to teaching second languages.

2.3  SLA and Approaches to Language Teaching

2.3.1	Three established approaches
2.3.2	Krashen’s Input Model
2.3.3	Challenges to Krashen’s model
2.3.4	SLA-linked teaching approaches: current proposals
2.3.5	Conclusion

2.3.1  Three established approaches
We first review three established approaches to teaching languages – Grammar-translation, Audiolingualism and the Natural Approach – which are presented in chronological order. We then explore in greater detail the model of second language acquisition which informs the Natural Approach and which has been influential in providing support for aspects of the broader Communicative Approach.

Reflective task 15

How do you prefer to learn a second language? To what extent do you see your language learning as involving skill development? concept development? implicit acquisition? What seems most important for you?

How do you prefer to teach a second language? Do you emphasize explicit or implicit learning? What do you feel is the right balance? Why?

2.3.1.1  Grammar-translation
The Grammar-translation approach, often referred to as a ‘traditional’ method of teaching foreign languages, relies on the formal teaching in the first language of grammatical rules, couched in metalinguistic terms. Learners are then expected to apply the rules in translation to and from the target language. It rose to popularity at the end of the eighteenth century and strongly influenced language teaching up until the late twentieth century.
	This approach typically emphasizes explicit concept learning and deduction. Grammatical accuracy is given particular emphasis, with little attention to communication as the end goal. In this way, this approach aims to develop a strong conceptual knowledge of the target language. However, the only language skill developed is translation, often of a highly controlled nature. In terms of developing effective ability to use a second language, Grammar-translation has the following limitations:
•	Few opportunities for proceduralization in communicative situations are provided.
•	In any case, the complexity of the knowledge taught tends to prevent easy proceduralization and thus does not support natural use of a second language.
•	It takes little account of ability to acquire second languages implicitly, in that there is little exposure to extended target language input.

2.3.1.2  Audiolingualism
The audiolingual method was developed in the United States during the late 1950s and 1960s as a reaction against the Grammar-translation approach. It drew on the behaviourist view (see section 2.2.3.1) which assumed that explanation of language was not helpful in language learning and that learners would best learn through carefully structured input, repetition and feedback. The idea was that the second language should be taught as a series of structural patterns which learners would automatize one by one. Automatization was to be achieved mainly through drilling; it was a key tenet of audiolingualism that learners had to automatize a taught structure correctly before being introduced to a new one.
	Audiolingualism, in contrast to the Grammar-translation approach, focused almost exclusively on skill development, but a rather narrow interpretation of it: automatization of key language patterns through drilling (see DeKeyser, 1998: 53–54). As such, it had the following limitations: 
•	It goes against much that we now know about the natural development of interlanguage, in particular that second language learners seem to build up control over grammatical structures very gradually through implicit induction. Thus, it seems implausible that learners would be able to internalize the grammar of a language effectively through drilling one grammatical structure after another. 
•	Learners may be able to use memorized ‘chunks’ of language in restricted contexts, but drilling (‘blind’ repetition) does not seem to bring about immediate segmentation of chunks. This is not to say that drilling isn’t helpful; only that it is limited in its impact.
•	Unsurprisingly, the audiolingual technique of repeating phrases significant only for their formal structure, not for their meaning, was boring and unmotivating. Learners might be able to utter examples of a structural pattern, but were given little chance to use the target language to express their own needs and ideas.

2.3.1.3  The Natural Approach
One of the most influential recent attempts to develop a teaching approach linked to findings from SLA has come from American applied linguist, Krashen. In the 1970s and 1980s, Krashen argued strongly for rejection of the audiolingual method on the grounds that second languages developed much like first – through implicit acquisition. He drew inspiration from Chomsky’s idea of an innate Language Acquisition Device (the early term for Universal Grammar – see section 2.2.3.2), but also from research on how speech to acquiring children is modified (see 2.2.3.3) and on stages of development in interlanguage (see section 2.1.4). He developed a set of five hypotheses known as either the Monitor Model or the Input Model on which he and Tracy Terrell then based their Natural Approach to second language teaching (Krashen and Terrell, 1983). This approach stresses that language classrooms need to provide lots of target language input which learners can – and are motivated to – understand; teachers then need to let learners engage their natural ability to develop knowledge of the target language implicitly by ensuring a stress-free environment. Formal learning, such as the presentation of grammar rules and error correction, is rejected as, at best, irrelevant and at worst, a hindrance to second language proficiency. All teachers should focus on is making language meaningful to learners at the different levels: the grammar will arguably take care of itself. Thus, there is no need for any grammatical or structural syllabus.
	Insofar as the Natural Approach argues that a second language is best developed through meaningful use of that language, and not through the accumulation of grammatical structures, Krashen’s views can be seen to support the broader Communicative Approach to language teaching. Despite its limitations, the Natural Approach is one of the few teaching approaches which draws directly on SLA research, and as such, we shall now examine it in some depth.

2.3.2  Krashen’s Input Model

Hypothesis 1   Acquisition versus Learning
According to Krashen, there are two entirely separate processes at work in building up knowledge of a second language: acquisition, which involves the implicit, unconscious creation of a grammar in the same way as a child acquires its first language; and learning which involves building up language through explicit, conscious knowledge in such activities as rule-learning, drill and error correction.

Hypothesis 2   Learning-as-Monitor
Krashen claims that learned knowledge can only function as a Monitor to help correct production in the L2. The real knowledge that enables us to perform fluently and spontaneously comes from acquisition:
Acquisition ‘initiates’ our utterances in a second language and is responsible for our fluency. […] Learning comes into play only to make changes in the form of our utterance, after it has been ‘produced’ by the acquired system.
(Krashen, 1982: 15)
This, Krashen argues, is because the brain can only access learned knowledge when there is time to think and when the learner’s focus is on form. Since these conditions don't usually hold in normal language use, learned knowledge is virtually impossible to use. (By learned knowledge Krashen seems to be referring to declarative knowledge – see section 2.2.1.5.) 

Hypothesis 3   The Natural Order
The second language grammatical system is acquired in a predictable ‘natural’ order, which cannot be influenced by formal teaching and is not determined by the learner's first language. This hypothesis draws its support from the research we have already reviewed in section 2.1.4 which shows predictable stages of development across L2 learners from a variety of backgrounds in such areas as negation, question formation and grammatical morphemes of English.

Hypothesis 4   Input
This claims that all that is required for second language acquisition is input which is comprehensible to the acquirer. This hypothesis relies strongly on the arguments from studies of child-directed speech in first language acquisition (see section 2.2.3.3) which showed that adults instinctively adjust the complexity of their speech to different levels of acquisition in children, as well as studies which show native speakers simplifying their speech to non-native speakers (more on this in section 2.3.3.2). Thus, Krashen argues, input to learners doesn't have to be specially structured, as in the behaviourist view; we simplify our language quite naturally in the process of trying to make target language input comprehensible to a learner, and this provides learners with what they need for acquisition. He further argues that getting learners to produce language should not be the emphasis in language teaching. As he says: 
Speaking fluency emerges over time, on its own. The best way, and perhaps the only way, to teach speaking is to provide comprehensible input. Production ability emerges. It is not taught directly. (Krashen, 1982: 22)

Hypothesis 5   The Affective Filter
If language acquisition fails to take place despite exposure to comprehensible input, then Krashen claims that this must be due to affective factors (motivation, self-confidence, anxiety) to which second language learners are more susceptible than children acquiring their first language. These factors act like a filter, stopping comprehensible input from triggering acquisition:
Those whose attitudes are not optimal for SLA will not only tend to seek less input, but they will also have a high Affective Filter – even if they understand the message, the input will not reach that part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, or the language acquisition device. Those with attitudes more conducive to SLA will not only seek and obtain more input, they will also have a lower or weaker filter. They will be more open to the input, and it will strike ‘deeper’.  (Krashen, 1982: 31)

Reflective task 16

The following is an extract from The Natural Approach. 

1.	Explain how the activity described illustrates a practical realization of Krashen’s five hypotheses.

The instructor uses context and the items themselves to make the meanings of the key words clear: hair, brown, long, short, etc. Then a student is described: What is your name? (selecting a student). Class, look at Barbara. She has long brown hair. Her hair is long and brown. Her hair is not short, it is long. (Using mime, point and context to ensure comprehension). What is the name of the student with long brown hair? (Barbara). Questions such as What is the name of the woman with short blond hair? or What is the name of the student sitting next to the man with short brown hair and glasses? are very simple to understand by attending to key words, gestures and context. And they require the students only to remember and produce the name of a fellow student. In fact, in such activities the students may only be consciously focused on remembering names, and often soon “forget” they are understanding another language.
(Krashen and Terrell, T, 1983: 76)

2.	What do you feel might be the advantages and disadvantages of this approach to language teaching?

3.	In particular, do you believe that it is enough to ‘understand input’ in this way in order to acquire new language?

Refer to commentary. 

2.3.3  Challenges to Krashen’s model

2.3.3.1  Is ‘just understanding’ enough?
Krashen claims we can acquire a second language because a) we have access to a Chomskyan Language Acquisition Device, and b) because speakers instinctively provide ‘the right stuff’ for acquisition in the process of making their language comprehensible. But you may remember that Chomsky’s notion of a Language Acquisition Device or Universal Grammar was designed to explain how children acquire language despite the input; simplification may help, but it cannot explain the whole process (see sections 2.2.3.2 and 2.2.3.3). Furthermore, we have seen some evidence which suggests that even if a Language Acquisition Device exists, it may not be available after puberty to support adult second language acquisition (see section 2.2.3.4). 
	Without the help of a Language Acquisition Device, is acquisition through understanding alone really plausible? First of all, how do we ‘understand’ language if we haven’t yet acquired knowledge of it? Krashen’s answer is that we use context and general knowledge of the world to guess at meaning. This seems all very well, but as Skehan (1998: 24–27) points out, Krashen then assumes that by guessing at meaning, we are also able subconsciously to focus on the grammar or ‘form’ of the language input. In Skehan’s view, this is psycholinguistically implausible, at least as far as the full grammatical complexity of the target language is concerned. In using language for communication, he argues, our tendency is to reduce attention to form, not to increase it: thus it seems difficult to imagine that complex grammatical structures could be acquired just from focusing on meaning. 
Normal communication is pervaded by the pressures of processing language in real time. We comprehend and produce language not by exhaustively analysing and computing (although we can do these things if we have to, for reasons of creativity or precision), but instead by drawing shamelessly on probabilistic strategies which work effectively enough [...] at considerable speed of processing. […] The central point is that language use, in itself, does not lead to the development of an analytic knowledge system since meaning distracts attention from form. (Skehan, 1998: 27)

Reflective task 17

Consider the following findings. In what ways do they support/challenge Krashen’s Input Model?

After many years of ‘immersion’ schooling during which time much of their secondary level classes were in French (history, geography, mathematics, etc) Canadian anglophone learners were tested on their communicative competence in French in three different areas:

•	grammar (oral interview, multiple choice exercise, written letter and narrative);
•	discourse (film retelling, multiple-choice exercise, written letter and narrative);
•	sociolinguistic competence (cued oral production on requests, suggestions, complaints; multiple choice exercise; written task).

Their results were compared with those of their native francophone peers. The research (Swain, 1985) found:
•	similar levels of discourse competence and sociolinguistic competence – and certainly levels of comprehension were similar, but 
•	grammatical accuracy was significantly different in particular in the areas of syntax, use of prepositions and verb morphology.

Refer to Commentary. 

2.3.3.2  The importance of interaction
Swain argued that what the immersion students lacked were opportunities to ‘output’ more, ie to express themselves in more and more complex tasks. You may remember that Krashen’s Input Hypothesis played down the significance of oral production (see section 2.3.2), emphasizing only comprehensible input. Swain argues for an Output Hypothesis, suggesting only through more production tasks would post-intermediate learners be able to try out more complex grammatical structures and get more feedback on their attempts. This in turn would ‘push’ their grammatical development in the second language. 
	At more or less the same time as Swain’s investigation, Michael Long (1983) was proposing similar modifications to Krashen’s Input hypothesis. Krashen seems to put the listener (the learner) in a rather passive role: it is the speaker who adjusts language to make it comprehensible. And Krashen was not very precise in clarifying what kind of adjustments to input might be significant to the acquisition process. Long suggested in his Interaction Hypothesis that a significant factor might be opportunities for learner and speaker to interact and ‘negotiate meaning’, rather than just the speaker’s adjustments of vocabulary and grammar.

Reflective task 18

1.	Imagine you are giving directions in your native language to an intermediate level non-native speaker. How would you ensure that you get the message across? Now imagine the roles are reversed and you are the non-native speaker: what could you do to try to ensure that you get the message?

2.	Based on Long’s Interaction Hypothesis, Pica et al (1987) compared the comprehensibility of two types of native speaker input. Two groups of non-native speakers had to follow instructions from the native speakers in order to complete a task involving physical placement of objects (eg put the umbrella drawing next to the toy dog at the back of the picture). In both groups, the input was delivered to the non-native speakers individually:
•	Those in Group A received input that was modified by the speaker beforehand to try to ensure that it was ‘comprehensible’ for the level of the learners involved. There was no interaction between the NS and the NNS.
•	Those in Group B received input that was not pre-modified by the NS, but interaction between the NS and the NNS was allowed: both could seek confirmation and clarification.
Which group do you think demonstrated higher comprehension levels? Why?

Refer to Commentary. 

2.3.3.3  Can’t learning influence acquisition and vice versa?
Krashen claims that the knowledge generated by explicit learning and by implicit acquisition remains forever separate (see section 2.3.2). But is it really impossible to use learned knowledge in the fluent performance of a skill? You may remember that Anderson and Finchman (see 2.2.1.5) claim that declarative knowledge is the ‘main avenue’ for the development of procedural (skill) knowledge: is second language development really so different from the development of other complex skills in that declarative knowledge cannot be proceduralized? While we would probably all agree that learners perform differently in tasks where they have time to use language deliberately and consciously, as opposed to tasks which require fluent performance, that does not necessarily have to imply two different types of knowledge which are totally separate. Many language learners can remember being taught a construction in class, practising it and then gradually being able to use it fluently.
	Furthermore, can’t explicit ‘learning’ influence implicit ‘acquisition’? It seems to be a general feature of human learning that we notice things more when we already have a framework for noticing them. Can’t our explicit learning provide a framework for our implicit acquisition? Learners who have first studied a language in a classroom and then spend time in the target language country often report that the target language quickly ‘fits together’: surely their classroom learning counts for something in this?

Reflective Task 19

Read through the following extracts from an American (L1 English) learner, who was learning Portuguese both in a class and outside in interaction with colleagues during a five-month stay in Rio de Janeiro. 

In what way could the extracts be seen as a challenge to Krashen’s claim that learning does not influence acquisition, and cannot be the knowledge source for fluent production?

Journal entry, week 6
This week (in class) we were introduced to and drilled on the imperfect. Very useful! The basic contrast seems straightforward enough ontem eu fui ao clube (yesterday, I went to the club) vs. antigamente eu ia ao clube (formerly, I used to go to the club). L (the teacher) gave us a third model: ontem eu ia ao clube, (yesterday, I was going to the club ... but I didn’t), which L says is a common way of making excuses. [...] Wednesday night A came over to play cards, and the first things he said was: eu ia telefonar para você (I was going to call you), exactly the kind of excuse L had said we could expect. I noticed that his speech was full of the imperfect, which I never heard (or understood) before, and during the evening I managed to produce quite a few myself, without hesitating much. Very satisfying!

Journal entry, week 21
I’ve reached a new take-off point and I wish I weren’t leaving in 10 days. The main thing that’s happened is that I’m suddenly hearing things I never heard before, including things mentioned in class. Way back in the beginning, when we learned question words, we were told that there are alternate short and long forms like o que and o que é que, quem or quem é que. I have never heard the long forms, ever, and concluded that they were just another classroom fiction. But today, just before we left Cabo Frio, M said something to me that I didn’t catch right away. It sounded like French qu’est-ce que c’est, only much abbreviated, approximately kekse, which must be (o) que (é) que (vo)cê. The other thing I just started hearing is reflexives. Maybe I just didn’t pay attention to them before, but I really never noticed any. In print, I’ve seen signs like aluga-se (for rent) and vende-se (for sale) which look like they have reflexive pronouns but also seem similar to passives. Suddenly I’m hearing those forms. [...]

Journal entry, week 22
I’ve just said to N o que é que vocé quer, but quickly [kekseker]. Previously I would have just said que. N didn’t blink, so I guess I got it right, except now I wonder if it should have been quiser. I can’t believe that what I notice isn’t crucial for what I do.
(Schmidt and Frota, 1986)

Refer to Commentary. 

2.3.3.4  The Noticing Hypothesis
As a result of his experiences, Schmidt challenges Krashen’s notion that ‘learned knowledge’ is of little help in developing a second language. His Noticing Hypothesis claims that explicit knowledge in fact contributes to the implicit acquisition process because it helps us to notice features in the input that we might otherwise have been oblivious to, even if that noticing is largely unintentional. 
	Later Schmidt (1990) establishes from a review of research in cognitive psychology, that: 
•	Implicit learning (ie learning which is not intentional, and of which we may not be strongly aware) is possible but relies on our ability to attend to key features from the mass of information to which we are exposed.
•	Second language learning can certainly be implicit but implicit processes may have limitations: our attention is likely to be drawn to salient and frequently-occurring features of linguistic input. 
Salient and frequently occurring features are likely to be lexical items in the first instance, and as was established in section 2.1.2, lexical items are the mainstay of early SLA. You may remember that Pienemann also proposed that operations involving the beginnings and ends of grammatical units are more salient and therefore likely to be processed before those which involve movement into the middle of a grammatical unit (see section 2.1.4.4). In implicit learning generally, our attention is also likely to be drawn to information which, for whatever reason, has personal significance, or links in to existing frameworks of knowledge, or which corresponds to a perceived need. This provides a psycholinguistic foundation for the emphasis in the Communicative Approach on language which is meaningful to the learner.
	But Schmidt’s key point for language teachers is that learners are unlikely to attend implicitly to all the key elements of a target language. For this reason, a purely implicit process (ie Krashen’s acquisition) is likely to lead to a fossilized grammar. This connects with the point made by Skehan (section 2.3.3.1) that we don’t focus detailed attention on form when we try to understand, and McLaughlin et al’s point (section 2.2.1.4) about the importance of restructuring the knowledge base for development of a complex, cognitive skill.
	Schmidt claims that teaching can help the internal grammar grow by drawing attention to various features of the target language. Thus Krashenian ‘learning’ can potentially speed up the acquisition process, so long as learners also have opportunities for meaningful interaction in the target language, and attention is not diverted by complex metalinguistic information. This was the case for Schmidt himself acquiring the imperfect: he suggests that he would not have noticed it in the input, had it not been for his language class.

2.3.3.5  The value of simple rules
Schmidt also suggests in his diary (as do other critics of Krashen) that learned knowledge can be used in spontaneous production. The problem, as we have stated (see section 2.2.4) is that much declarative knowledge about language in the form of language rules is so complicated that it is difficult to proceduralize. But even Krashen himself acknowledges that learners can use ‘simple rules’ to extend their grammatical resources. Simple rules are those:
•	which don't involve elaborate movement or permutation (eg, changing a to an in front of a vowel);
•	where the semantics of the rule is straightforward (eg, using who with humans and which with all other things).
These ideas chime with Green and Hecht’s (1992) findings from the study discussed in Reflective task 13, that explicit knowledge of rules seemed to help more on corrections which involved easy or mechanical rules, rather than those which involved complex concepts such as tense and aspect usage. 
	As we have seen, work in SLA has challenged both the highly explicit presentation of formal structures in Grammar-translation and Audiolingualism, and the assumption in the Natural Approach that structure and form will take care of themselves through implicit acquisition. There is a strong realization in SLA now that both explicit presentation of forms, and opportunities for implicit acquisition are required for effective language teaching.

2.3.4  SLA-linked teaching approaches: current explorations
Currently, different researchers and teaching professionals are exploring somewhat different ideas for combining the development of explicit and implicit learning, of concepts and skill in second language acquisition. In this final section, we summarize three rather different proposals. (Useful extended reviews of this complex area where research and teaching currently intersect are given in Spada (1997) and Doughty and Williams (1998).)

2.3.4.1  Long’s Focus on form, not Focus on formS
Michael Long initially stressed how comprehensible input should be provided, not by the speaker modifying their speech to a learner in isolation, but through interaction between the speaker and the learner (see section 2.3.3.2). Building on Swain’s (1985) findings, Long (1991) then developed his view to include the benefits for learners when their own output is subjected to clarification or ‘negotiation of meaning’ by another speaker. 
	In this way, Long believes that interactive communication can provide everything that acquisition needs: comprehensible input and feedback on output (cf Klein’s ‘matching’ process – see section 2.1.1.1), all within a communicative context. This approach is what he calls Focus on form, not Focus on formS (the latter involves looking at language forms in isolation from communicative activities):
A syllabus with a focus on form teaches something else – biology, mathematics, ... the geography of a country where the foreign language is spoken, and so on – and overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication. (Long, 1991: 45–46)
In this way, Long tries to take on board research evidence that acknowedges implicit acquisition in second language development, but which also suggests that explicit attention to form can work, but only when learners are ‘ready’ – in terms of the development of their language system through implicit acquisition (see section 2.1.4.4). 

2.3.4.2  DeKeyser’s skill-based approach
Arguing from a theory of skill acquisition (see 2.2.1), DeKeyser (1998: 58) suggests that ‘declarative knowledge should be developed first, before it can be proceduralised [...]‘ and then automatized. DeKeyser proposes fairly traditional teaching methods, such as presenting key structures explicitly, then practising them in limited contexts (eg fill-in-the-blank tasks) and then, once learners have started to proceduralize the knowledge, offering tasks which require more automatized knowledge of the structure, such as extended reading and speaking tasks. In his proposals, he seeks to marry focus on structure and communicative activity, the kind of combination that is seen in many current course books. DeKeyser thus rejects the kinds of repetitive drills which focus attention only on formal aspects of a structure, and which were typical of Audiolingualism (see 2.3.1.2). He argues that language teaching needs to ensure the following:
•	The meaning communicated by any language item or structure is made clear, ie it is linked to a context of communication.
•	The learner is given time to explore the conceptual aspects of the language item in ways which are not rushed or repetitive.
•	The formal aspects of it are attended to, but in a way which is appropriate to the level of the students and the context of communication.
•	There are then lots of opportunities for meaningful practice of different kinds of these particular language items.

[…] all practice designed to make the student more skilled at fluent production of the language should avoid being exclusively forms-focussed or exclusively meaning-focussed; otherwise it cannot contribute to the translation of knowledge into a behavioural pattern that consists of linking forms with meaning. (DeKeyser, 1998: 62)

2.3.4.3  Skehan’s task-based instruction
Skehan (1996, 1998) claims that acquisition through comprehensible input alone simply will not work as a recipe for developing a second language to a high level of proficiency. As a result of his reviews of work in cognitive psychology, he proposes that language teaching needs to address three areas of development:
•	fluency (ie the effective communicative use, in real time, of known TL forms);
•	accuracy (ie the accurate and consistent use of known TL forms);
•	complexity (ie the extension of knowledge of TL forms).
Skehan argues that these three areas cannot be developed at the same time through the same type of task: in this, he seems to have a slightly different perspective to both Long and DeKeyser. Therefore, in planning language teaching programmes, we need to think particularly carefully about the design of the learning tasks we offer our learners and the processes they involve: it is the tasks that determine the allocation of learner attention to different areas of language. 
	For example, familiar and structured tasks, such as those that require learners to express personal information (eg where they live, where they work, what they like) in a fairly predictable way (eg in answer to interview questions) will not require huge amounts of attention on content and organization, particularly if learners are allowed to prepare their interview first. Such tasks, according to Skehan, offer opportunities for learners to develop fluency. Contrast that with an oral presentation of a complex issue, such as the rights and wrongs of immigration laws. Skehan hypothesizes that this task will not offer effective opportunities for fluency development because it requires so much attention to ideas and their organization. However, it should encourage learners to extend their target language vocabulary and grammar resources, ie it offers opportunities for complexity development.
	Skehan (1998: 114–20) draws up recommendations on the basis on his research review for the kinds of tasks which might promote the three different areas:

Fluency	use more familiar and structured tasks, eg relating to personal information, but allow for detailed planning	
Complexity	use more complex tasks, eg not relating to personal information and possibly not involving a clear structure, but allow for detailed planning	
Accuracy	use more and structured familiar tasks, eg relating to personal information, but allow only for general planning	

The idea here, following both Long and DeKeyser, is to try to ensure that focus on meaning and focus on form are balanced. However Skehan differs from DeKeyser in arguing that the two cannot necessarily be developed at the same time, and from Long in proposing rather more systematic planning for focus on form through task design than Long. Skehan’s proposals have become part of the approach known as Task-based Instruction (TBI) that is at the centre of current pedagogic debate in the TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) field.

What is clear from all three current proposals is that a monolithic view of the second language learning process, such as those exemplified in the three approaches we reviewed at the start of this section (Grammar-translation, Audiolingualism and the Natural Approach) is not supported by SLA research. What is far more problematic is to conclude exactly what kind of approach to second language teaching is the most effective. The answer from SLA seems to be: one that combines opportunities for skill development and concept development, both through explicit and implicit learning.

2.3.5  Conclusion
As SLA research continues its exploration of how learners build up their interlanguage and how various learning activities have different effects on that process, so we piece together an ever more detailed picture of the process of second language acquisition. A number of general conclusions emerge: 

•	One strong insight from the study of SLA is that building up language knowledge is not simply a matter of accumulating and automatizing discrete ‘bits of language’, as though they were facts: language knowledge constitutes an internal system that seems to grow organically. It also needs to be practised in communicative activity, and possibly also in controlled activity, in order to ensure proceduralization and automatization.

•	Further, there are probably different pathways through learning a second language, some of which work for some learners in some contexts, some of which work for others in other contexts – we have to be careful about assuming 'one size fits all'. Some learners will be good at picking language up implicitly: others may need to feel they understand grammatical concepts more explicitly.

•	There is thus probably no best teaching 'method' corresponding to a single, universal process of second language learning – some hypotheses have been put forward as to which kinds of language learning activities should work best, but we still need to observe what our learners are doing and feeling, and try to understand what makes sense for them.

•	Learners do not simply learn what teachers teach: they process the information they perceive, and notice aspects of it depending on their existing knowledge and orientation. We need to be aware that what seems obvious and easy to us as 'experts' may not be obvious or easy to our 'novice' learners.

It can be frustrating for the hard-pressed teacher to feel that there are, as yet, no methods or techniques that are unambiguously supported by SLA research. But this just reinforces the importance of the teacher in the classroom: only the teacher can pick up and respond to the differences between learners in a class, and the differences between the class on one day and on another day. What this module has tried to do is to alert you to the general background to your day-to-day, minute-by-minute decision-making in the classroom. What SLA can never do is tell any teacher exactly what to do. It can however try to encourage teachers to explore more closely the fascinating world of learning.

2.4  Commentary on reflective tasks

Reflective task 1
You probably guessed from the context that the German speaker was asking for something: a complete stranger is unlikely to invite you to a party or tell you the latest football results unprompted! He was in fact asking you to pass him the salt. 
	If you had actually been present in the situation, it is quite likely that you would have noticed the speaker looking at the salt, or pointing at it, and from this visual information, you could probably have guessed what he wanted. 
	But in order to develop any knowledge of German, you would need to start breaking down the incomprehensible stream of speech sounds into possible words (or else you would need a very strong memory to retain the whole phrase!). What the German speaker said was:

	Ach, 	können Sie 	mir 	mal	 das Salz 	reichen, 	bitte schön?
	Oh 	could 	you 	to me	just	the salt 	pass	please?

Working out the words from a foreign language sound stream can be very challenging.  Here’s what two English speakers with no knowledge of German thought they heard:

	Achkun seemel dazalts rigen, bishown
	Can see me detsalrye, bitshun
	
As you can see, they were unable to identify all the separate words, even though the sound system of English is quite close to that of German. In connected speech, there are rarely clear pauses to indicate each word. And if we are not used to the sound patterns of the foreign language, we are unlikely to hear all the elements anyway.
	But let’s assume you have identified what you think are some words. How do you find out what they mean? As Klein explains:
Suppose you have really succeeded in identifying certain units in the sound stream of the German speaker, and that you have become aware of two sound entities in particular: [zalts] and [das]. Let us further assume that precisely at the time of saying [das zalts] the speaker had pointed to the salt. Why should [zalts] rather than [das] be associated with the salt on the table? Well, this depends crucially on one’s knowledge. An English native speaker might find it plausible that the sound sequence [zalts] means salt. For a speaker of Japanese, however, there is not a trace of a clue like this; what remains is pure guesswork. (Klein, 1986: 59)
To make any sense of foreign language speech, we have to engage in what Klein refers to as ‘innumerable cycles of hypothesising’, using whatever existing knowledge – knowledge of the world and knowledge of other languages – that we can muster. Arguably teaching can make things easier by isolating and clarifying phrases, but that still leaves the challenge of integrating that knowledge into a language system and using it in communication.

Reflective task 2
1) English data
In comparing the English native speaker and the English non-native speaker, you probably noticed that: 
•	The range of vocabulary used by the non-native speaker was more limited:
The native speaker used a variety of expressions to convey the detail – the woman is fat, old, a bun on her head, towards the back of her neck, a hat on her head, with a checkered skirt, tennis shoes, holding a leash; the dog is barking, one of those big dogs, like a greyhound, a saddle, a sweater on his back, a black collar; the man is bald, has a moustache, big nose, wearing a bowtie, with a black umbrella, etc

The non-native speaker's description relied on the key nouns - man, dog, woman, hat, umbrella. There were few more specific nouns and few adjectives.
•	Some word choices by the non-native speaker seemed odd or approximate, not what a native speaker would use:
-   the man don't appreciate the dog;
-   because this dog is not quiet (is barking?).
•	There was greater fluency and continuity in the native speaker's discourse:
The language just runs on and on, with the native speaker using phrases like And, I don't know, like, kind of like, to keep the flow going; we have the impression that the language mirrored his thinking. A lot of information was contained in the units or 'sentences' of this speaker's description by means of a lot of adjectives and prepositional phrases, such as with a bun on, on her head, like, towards the back of her head, as well as relative clauses: who's barking, who's wearing, that's got ...

The units of the non-native speaker's speech were much shorter and less complex, consisting mostly of the basic subject + verb + complement type. Pauses were filled with uhh, um and ahh.
•	Certain morphological features were missing or overgeneralized in the non-native speaker's speech. (The symbol ø is used to indicate a missing element).
-   lack of the s marker on 3rd person singular, so the 'basic' form of the verb is overgeneralized: lookø, wantø, lookø, knowø;
-   overgeneralization of plural marker s: two mens;
-   overgeneralization of don't to all parts of the verb: the man don't speak.
•	The use of some morphological features seemed variable
-   choice of tense in The woman is speaking; the man don't speak seemed arbitrary;
-   sometimes the determiner a was used where required, sometimes not: I see a man, they have ø problem.

2) French, German and Spanish data
You've probably identified similar characteristics in the other descriptions:
•	Lexical range is restricted, often with an approximate term, a paraphrase, or an L1 term being used to try to communicate the precise idea:
-   Son chien est fâché et son chien ouvre son bouche (aboie?);
-   El perro umm está gritando al hombre (ladrando?);
-   y está trayendo una umm no recuerdo la palabra, pero umm es para ... para la lluvia .. para no sacar la lluvia;
-   Wir haben eine picture mit zwei Leute; 
-   es un bowtie ... la mujer tiene un leash.
•	Phrases may be constructed along the lines of the L1:
-   son chien ouvre son bouche (opens his mouth) ;
-   je pense ø la femme est vieux aussi (I think the woman is old as well);
-   ich weiss nicht dieses (I don't know this);
-   Von der links (on the left);
-   en mi opinion (in my opinion)... 

In terms of morphology:
•	There is variability in tense usage – it seems random:
-   Il y a (present) aussi un homme, un homme avait (imperfect) peur du chien, et le homme porte (present) une....
-   la mujer tiene (present) un umm leash ... La mujer parecía (imperfect) como ella está diciendo (present continuous) algo pero no se...
•	There is variability in the use of determiners: sometimes they are missing or the wrong determiner is used; in other cases, the determiner does not ‘agree’ with the noun it relates to:
-   La femme porte un chapeau, une robe et ø chaussures;
-   die Frau hat einen Hut und nicht in Seite, in Mitte ist einen Hund und rechts ist einen Mann;
-   Pués, hay una mujer con el perro y hay otra hombre.
•	Generally, morphological agreement is variable:
-   je pense que la femme est vieux aussi;
-   Der Mann sind in der Nahe der Hund;
-   el perro es suya  no y...suyo.

Reflective task 3
Under pressure to communicate your meaning in as few a number of words as possible, you probably chose to concentrate on lexical items (or ‘content’ words) such as arrive - train - Brighton - tomorrow - 6.30pm leaving out the grammatical items such as I’m - by - in. You no doubt left out the contextualizing phrase As I said yesterday, leaving the reader to fill in the context which you assume he/she knows already. If number of letters had also counted, you would probably have simplified arriving to arrive, deleting the grammatical item ing which carries information about timing, also communicated by the words tomorrow and 6.30pm. 
	Faced with the demands of the second language acquisition task, second language learners simplify in the same way, concentrating on lexical items: the grammatical 'glue' only gets added gradually.
	But why is the grammatical ‘glue’ important? Without out it, language can be very ambiguous. The message arrive - train - Brighton - tomorrow - 6.30pm could easily mean: I’m arriving by train, but I have to be in Brighton tomorrow at 6.30 pm or I’m arriving by the train that leaves Brighton tomorrow at 6.30 pm or even He/She/They arrive by train in Brighton tomorrow at 6.30pm.

 Reflective task 4
1.  There are three womans
Here the plural marker s has been overgeneralized to one of the few words in English where the plural is formed differently.

2.  He get ups early
Here the 3rd person singular marker s has been applied to what the learner has construed as the verb [get@p]. This is not so much a case of overgeneralization as mis-segmentation of getup, with the result that the learner has applied the right morpheme (s) to the wrong unit.

3.  Il a offri un cadeau à sa mère
Here the learner has overgeneralized the ‘regular’ ending for past participles of -ir verbs in French: finir -> j’ai fini, so why not offrir -> j’ai offri? It should of course be offert.

4.  C'est le livre que j'ai lisé l'année dernière
Here the learner has overgeneralized the standard (‘default’) form of past participles, which sound similar to the vous form of the present tense: vous chantez - j’ai chanté, vous lisez -> j’ai lisé. Unfortunately, the conjugation of lire does not follow this pattern; its past participle is lu.

5.  Il y a beaucoup de festivaux en France l'été
Here the learner has overgeneralized the plural ending for nouns ending in -al: cheval -> chevaux, hôpital -> hôpitaux, so why not festival -> festivaux? No reason, it’s just festival -> festivals!

6.  C'est un homme vieil
If the learner had transferred the pattern of their L1 (English), they would have placed the adjective vieil in the correct position! If we take vieux as the ‘default’ adjective (old), then the learner has managed to make the change for a masculine noun beginning with a vowel. However, they have overgeneralized the ‘default’ position for adjectives in French, which is after the noun.

7.  Das ist nein kaputt
The negator is in the right position, it’s just the wrong negator, but then German has three. Nein (No) has been overgeneralized to a role where a different negator (nicht) is required.

8.  Nein, ich bist keine müde
The learner has overgeneralized the 2nd person singular form of the verb (Du bist...) perhaps because they have heard it again and again in classroom exchanges. They have also overgeneralized the negator used with nouns (kein). But again, the negator appears in the correct position – which is progress!

9.  Da war eine Party und war ich spät nach Hause.
This learner seems to have picked up on the fact that German often inverts subject and verb, particularly after conjunctions and adverbs (eg here Da). However, they have overgeneralized this feature to a context where it is not used, ie after coordinating conjunctions such as und. 

Reflective task 5
You probably attributed the Spanish speaker's I no understand to influence from the speaker’s L1 ([yo] no entiendo). However, this explanation cannot hold for German where the L1 form is ich + verb + nicht. Yet Wode (1981) noted that his German L1 daughter consistently produced phrases such as I no drink milk during her acquisition of L2 English in the United States. It seems that learners from all language backgrounds go through similar stages of development in acquiring negation in English.

Reflective task 6
The explanation offered by the two studies is similar. Weinert explains her data thus:
Considering the beginners' status of our learners (Year 1), the high proportion (90%) of postverbally negated sentences containing finite main verbs is surprising. Naturalistic learners distinguish finite main verbs from other verbs, placing the negator in front of finite main verbs... However, there is evidence that these structures when produced by our learners are formulaic, rather than being generated by a learnt system of target-language negative rules. In almost 75% of cases of postverbally negated finite main verbs, subjects insert the adverb gern into the sentence where it is inappropriate or not required. (Weinert, 1987: 92)
In other words, the first year learners were able to produce correct negative sentences because they were reproducing from memory a 'chunk' of language, eg Ich ... nicht gern, which had been exhaustively drilled in class. Similarly, the early correct use of kein was explained in terms of repeated drilling of Ich habe kein X. 
	As these learners were exposed to more varied uses of nicht and kein, they were not able to integrate the distinction systematically in their internal grammar. Instead, there was considerable variability (randomness, unpredictability) in their selection of kein or nicht. As the data show, their internal grammar tended to favour placing nicht in front of the element to be negated, eg Ich nicht spiele Fussbal. As you may remember (section 2.1.4.1), this placing of the negator in front of the element to be negated seems to be the typical ‘basic’ pattern in early second language acquisition, produced by both naturalistic and instructed learners of English and of German.  
	Similarly, although in a different area of grammar and with a different target language, Myles et al comment:
[Our data] indicate that, overall, our learners increasingly resort to V-less utterances over time in order to ask questions [...]. This can be linked to the fact that learners generally rely on chunks less and less as time goes on and as their communicative needs increase. (Myles et al, 1999: 70)

Reflective task 7
1.  Comment t'appelles-tu le garçon?
Here the question Comment t’appelles-tu? has been learned as a chunk and is used simply to ask the question ‘What’s .... name?’, with the subject of the question specified in the following noun phrase le garçon.
2.  Mon petit garçon ... où habites-tu?
Here the question où habites-tu? has been learned as a chunk and is used simply to ask the question ‘Where do/does .... live?’ The subject of the question is specified in the first noun phrase. Interestingly, the learner has replaced the determiner le with the determiner mon. This might be evidence of further chunk-type learning, since it is quite possible the learner has memorized phrases beginning with mon/ma + noun.
3.  une famille j'habite un maison
Here the memorized answer (if we assume classroom drilling of a typical exchange Où habites-tu? J’habite....) forms the chunk, with the subject specified in the first noun phrase tagged on to the chunk.
4.  Où est la gare l'église?
Here the chunk is the question Où est la gare which has been memorized as a whole (it was the ‘presentation phrase’ drilled repeatedly in a class on asking directions). The specific reference in this case l’église is then tagged on the end.
5.  What d'you doing, this boy?
Again, the chunk is What d’you doing, with the specific subject tagged on the end. Interestingly, the chunk here seems to be an amalgam of two chunks What d’you and What’ re you which can be phonologically similar in fast, relaxed speech.
6. Wie alt dein Geburtstag?
Wie alt must be part of a larger chunk, presumably the question Wie alt bist du? (How old are you)? The learner uses part of the chunk in a similar context to ask not age, but birthday. It is as though Wie alt, presumably known from Wie alt bist du? stands in for a question asking When...
7.  Q: Hast du eine Katze?
     A: Nein, hast du eine Katze.
Here the learner has simply taken the question and, in order to give a negative answer, has placed the negator nein at the start, and then repeated the question. This repeating back, with some addition at the beginning or end, is found fairly frequently in early interlanguage communication.

Reflective task 8
1) French
According to the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis: 
(i) English learners of French will make the error of placing the object pronoun after the verb: Je vois LES.
Evidence: CAH confirmed ü
Several researchers have found examples of anglophone learners placing object pronouns after the verb, eg Le chien a mangé les, Il veut les encore (Ervin-Tripp, 1974; and Selinker, Swain and Dumas, 1975, cited in Gass and Selinker, 1994: 63).
(ii) French learners of English will make the error of placing the object pronoun before the verb: I THEM see.
Evidence: CAH not confirmed X
Zobl (1980, cited in Gass and Selinker,1994: 63) was unable to find any evidence of this error in his data from French-speaking learners of English, and none has come to light since. French learners appear not to have problems with putting the object pronoun after the verb in English. The difference between French and English does not result in difficulty in this case.

2) German
According to the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis:
(i) English learners of German will have difficulty pronouncing the final consonant of the German Hand as /t/. They will pronounce it as /d/.
Evidence: CAH not confirmed X
According to Eckman (1977, cited in Gass and Selinker, 1994: 97) English learners find it relatively easy to devoice the final consonant, pronouncing Hand with the target-like /t/ at the end.
(ii) German learners of English will have difficulty pronouncing the final consonant of the English hand as /d/. They will pronounce it as /t/.
Evidence: CAH confirmed ü
According to Eckman, German learners have great difficulty in voicing the final consonant, pronouncing hand with L1-influenced /t/, rather than the target-like /d/.

Reflective task 9
According to the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, learners assume that the target language corresponds to their L1 pattern, so difference causes difficulty while similarity makes for ease of learning. The sequence of verb marking is identical in all three languages: If + V + past, V + conditional. Thus, in principle, none of the learners in this group should encounter any particular difficulty. However, the reality is somewhat different…
	There are unfortunately no data available on French and English learners of Dutch but English and Dutch learners of French (even at advanced level) produce:
Si j'aurais* l'argent, j'achèterais une voiture
while French and Dutch learners of English (at advanced level) produce:
If I would* have the money, I would buy a car
(Source: the author's collection of learner errors and Kellerman, E, 1989). 
	In this area of grammar, then, learners from all three language backgrounds seem to disregard not only the pattern of their own language but the target language model as well – which frankly seems rather perverse!  Why?… Read section 2.1.6.3. 

Reflective task 10
Sjoholm and Ringbom’s data suggest a strong influence for knowledge of a language that is close to the target language. Then, all other things being equal, an L1 is likely to have more influence than an L2: Swedish L1 learners of English generally did better than Finnish L1 learners who had L2 Swedish. But Sjoholm’s and Ringbom’s research points out that while having a good knowledge of a close language may be an advantage, it can also be a hindrance: the close language (Swedish) was a more likely source of error than the distant language (Finnish). This again challenges the rather simplistic predictions of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis.

Reflective task 13
The results suggest three significant conclusions:
1. Grammar rules seem to be hard to retain and to use accurately, even on a correction task.
Evidence: in only 46% of cases were the participants, all of whom had been ‘taught’ the rule on several occasions, able to state an accurate and appropriate rule.
2. To correct incorrect sentences, you don’t have to know the appropriate rule.
Evidence: 78% of test items were correctly corrected; accurate rules were only given for 46% of test items. Thus 32% of test items were corrected without recourse to accurate explicit rule understanding. Students must have been using knowledge induced implicitly.
So far, the obvious conclusion might be ‘teaching formal grammar is of little use’. However...
3. If you do know the appropriate rule, it seems to help accuracy.
Evidence: In 97% of those cases where a correct rule was given (46% of total test items), the correction made was accurate.
What seems to be the most sensible conclusion, then, is that formal grammar (usually built up through explicit, deductive, concept learning) is not a straightforward tool in second language learning. It seems to help some students in some cases, but it does not help all students in all cases. The research demonstrates that explicit grammar cannot be necessary to using a second language – otherwise, we would see no accurate corrections without accurate rules –  but that it can facilitate accurate use.
	The question of how explicit and implicit knowledge work together in second language development is at the forefront of current SLA research (for useful book-length discussions, see Ellis, N C, 1994; Ellis, R, 1998; and Skehan, 1998). This debate was originally triggered in the 1970s and 1980s by attempts by some researchers (in particular, Krashen) to argue that learning a second language relied on the same implicit processes as learning one’s first. It is to the notion of ‘learning’ as ‘implicit acquisition’ that we now turn our attention.

Reflective task 14
Exercise 1:
You probably arrived at the following answers just by checking for patterns among the data provided: 
	le trivernement		l’ éborage		l’iroment
	la tage				la ranté		l’uration
	la métoration			le lavorage		la vission
The rules are as follows:
•	nouns ending in –ment are masculine and take le;
•	nouns of two or more syllables ending in –age are masculine and take le;
•	nouns of one syllable ending in –age are feminine and take la;
•	nouns ending in –tion or –sion are feminine and take la;
•	nouns ending in –té are feminine and take la;
•	both le and la are reduced to l’ when the noun starts with a vowel.

Exercise 2:
You can see here how a surface pattern – to be + adjective + to please (+ object) – cannot always be generalized: induction has its limits. The problem here is that easy + to please has a different underlying structure to the other two apparently identical structures. In easy to please, the subject of ‘easy’ is the object of ‘please’, since the meaning is in fact: John is easy to be pleased. How can children work out the difference just from hearing the surface structures? Now read section 2.2.3.2. 

Reflective task 16
Krashen claims that language teaching methods only have to do two things: 
1.	supply comprehensible input
This, according to the input hypothesis (Hypothesis 4), will allow acquisition to take place. Nothing else has to be done since acquisition cannot be influenced by explicit learning (Hypotheses 1 and 2) and the acquired grammar will build up on its own  according to the ‘Natural Order’ (Hypothesis 3).
2.	ensure a stress-free environment
The only possible blocks to the acquisition process once comprehensible input is available are affective factors (Hypothesis 5). Thus, to minimize these, a stress-free environment is needed and students shouldn’t feel pressure to talk (unnecessary, since speaking will ‘emerge’ on its own).
	In the example given here:
•	the teacher is using the context to ensure that the learners understand new language (comprehensible input);
•	the learners don’t have to produce anything in the target language (no emphasis on speaking, a stress-free environment);
•	there is no emphasis on conscious learning of language (learning is unnecessary since its value is marginal).

Reflective task 17
The immersion schools set up in officially bilingual Canada were a useful test-bed for Krashen’s Input model, providing what Krashen claimed was an optimal environment for second language acquisition. 
	However, Swain’s (1985) research suggests that even after years in this apparently optimal francophone environment, anglophone students’ grammatical proficiency in French was significantly different from their native francophone counterparts, who had followed the same curriculum in their native French-speaking schools. 
	On the positive side, the immersion students’ ability to use French in socially acceptable ways was equal to their francophone counterparts. Their ability to organize their French effectively in summaries and narratives was also similar. So there is no doubt that the immersion environment was conducive to the acquisition of fluency in French. However, the differences in grammatical proficiency suggest that comprehensible input is not ‘enough’ to bring about the development of a complete and accurate grammatical system. 

Reflective task 18
Based on the review of research in this area by Ellis, R (1994: 251–65), the kinds of things which NSs do to try to get meaning across to NNSs with limited proficiency are:
•	speak slower, with longer pauses;
•	use shorter sentences;
•	reduce subordinate constructions and increase coordinate constructions;
•	use common lexical items repeatedly (little variation of lexical items).
NSs also:
•	reduce the amount and simplify the type of information conveyed;
•	use more questions;
•	focus talk on the here-and-now;
•	repeat;
•	check understanding from the NNS.
In response to talk from a NNS, they:
•	adapt to whatever topics the NNS picks up;
•	avoid correcting any errors;
•	ask for clarification if understanding breaks down.
As we mentioned, Long (1983) has argued that interactional modifications, such as using more questions, repeating, checking understanding, asking for clarification, are more important in bringing about understanding than linguistic modifications, such as reducing subordinate constructions and shorter sentences, on their own.
	You probably guessed correctly that in Pica et al’s research, it was Group B (with opportunities for interaction) who were able to complete the comprehension task more quickly and more successfully than Group A who just followed simplified input.
	This suggests that interaction between speakers is important for comprehension; in other words, providing comprehensible input is not simply the task of the proficient speaker; learners also need to be active in order to indicate when they don’t understand and check when they think they have. There need to be opportunities for negotiation of meaning.
However, while Pica et al’s research suggests that opportunities for interaction can lead to better comprehension by non-native speakers, it does not provide evidence that they lead to enhanced acquisition. This kind of evidence has so far been scarce in SLA.

Reflective task 19
What seems to emerge from Richard Schmidt’s diary is how the more formal instruction seems to trigger his ability to ‘notice’ features of the grammar and he seems to be able to use learned knowledge to produce language in conversation:
This week (in class) we were introduced to and drilled on the imperfect... A came over ... I noticed that his speech was full of the imperfect, which I never heard (or understood) before, and during the evening I managed to produce quite a few myself, without hesitating much. Very satisfying!
Now, Schmidt acknowledges that much of his Portuguese development was Krashenian ‘acquisition’, but his point is that his formal ‘learning’ seemed to speed up his implicit acquisiton, by facilitating the process of noticing.

2.5	Appendix: Universal Grammar

(Supplement to section 2.2.3.2)

Principles and parameters
It has been hypothesized that Universal Grammar consists of principles, which all languages follow, and parameters, which represent a restricted range of structural possibilities. Here is a flavour of the kind of knowledge that linguists have hypothesized makes up our Universal Grammar:

The principle of structure dependency

All languages are built around the unit of 'phrases' or ‘constituents’, not single words.

eg To form a question from a statement, you need to know about moving 'phrases' not words:

	Jo is in the garden	-> Is Jo in the garden? ü
	Possible rule = switch first and second words around BUT ...

	The cat is in the garden -> Cat the is in the garden X
	SO possible rule = move the verb to the beginning of the sentence

	Is the cat in the garden ü
	The cat who is in the garden at the moment is next door's
	Is the cat who in the garden at the moment is next door's? X

	Sensible Rule = move the main verb in front of the subject noun phrase
	[Is] - [the cat who is in the garden at the moment] - next door's?

The principle of phrase construction

The basic components of these 'phrases' are a key element (known as the HEAD), plus associated elements known as SPECIFIERS and COMPLEMENTS which all behave in predictable ways, whatever the nature of the head.

Noun head	:	[The] CAT [in the garden]
Verb head		[often] CATCHES [birds]
Adjective head	The cat is [very] CONTENT [to bask in the sun]
Preposition head	to bask [  ] IN [the sun]

As you can see, various words can make up the Specifier and the Complement units, and phrases can be contained within phrases, but each phrase unit has the same basic construction.

The Head parameter
Languages appear to have two basic alternatives with regard to the position of the HEAD element and its COMPLEMENT. The HEAD can either come before the COMPLEMENT as is the case in English or French

Verb phrase	.... 		TUE la souris	(KILLS the mouse)
Prepositional phrase... 	DANS le jardin	(IN the garden)

or it can come after, as in Japanese or Chinese

Verb phrase			Nihonjin DESU	(Japanese AM)
Prepositional phrase	Nihon NI		(Japan IN)

To explain how Universal Grammar can be claimed to facilitate the first language acquisition process, let us take the example of the Head Parameter. Instead of having to work out how every single word functions in relation to every single other word, children need only be alert to two possibilities – head first or head last. They can assume that this construction principle will apply generally throughout the grammar. This makes any variations much easier to deal with, because somehow the child knows they are exceptions. These exceptions to Universal Grammar will then have to be learned through implicit induction from the input and memorization.
	This appears to be what happens for L1 French children learning to put a complement (object pronouns) before a head (the verb). As a general rule, complements follow heads in French as in English

	Le chat TUE [la souris]	(The cat KILLS [the mouse])
but
	Le chat [la] TUE		(The cat [it] KILLS)

The assumption is that French children will very quickly place complements after heads (objects after verbs), according to their Head Parameter setting. Object pronouns are an exception to this, so this structural feature has to be induced from the input – and sure enough, French children have problems acquiring the correct positioning of object pronouns just as English learners of French do (see Reflective task 9, and for more discussion Towell and Hawkins, 1994: 68–70)

2.6  Glossary

Automatization
The process whereby the components of a skill are performed, or the information is accessed, ‘without thinking’, ie quickly and independent of our conscious attention.

Behaviourist, behaviourism
A view of human activity in terms of behaviour, rather than underlying knowledge: in particular, learning is seen as habit formation as a result of behavioural responses to various stimuli or input from the environment being reinforced. A behaviourist view of language learning stresses learning through repetition and automatization of key structures.

Declarative knowledge
Knowledge of facts that can be stated.

Deduction
A process of reasoning in which a rule or general principle is used to draw conclusions about how data will behave (eg using a grammatical rule to produce a language form).

Discourse competence
Knowledge of how to organize language appropriately in constructing different types of written or oral text.

Explicit learning
Learning that takes place with conscious awareness and intention, and which results in knowledge of which the learner is aware (often declarative knowledge).

Implicit learning
Learning that takes place independently of conscious awareness and intention (sometimes referred to specifically as acquisition) It generally involves induction of a general pattern based on key features perceived (not necessarily consciously) in the input. ‘Material that has been learned implicitly can be used to guide behaviour, make decisions and solve problems, although the individual is typically unaware of the complex knowledge held that enables him or her to act in this fashion’ (Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 2nd Edition).

Induction
A process of learning whereby a general principle (eg a rule) is derived from exposure to, or observation of, data exemplifying that rule. It can happen implicitly or explicitly.

Input
The language to which language learners are exposed. Krashen’s Input Hypothesis argues that all that is required for second language acquisition to occur is exposure to ‘comprehensible input’, input that can be understood.

Interlanguage
The second language learner’s language, and the systematic knowledge that underlies it.

Lexical
Relating to words, and in particular, content words such as cat, study, happy as opposed to grammatical words, such as am, do, the.

Marked, markedness
A linguistic feature is said to be ‘marked’ in relation to another linguistic feature, when it is in some way ‘unusual’ or ‘less basic’ in a given language or languages.

Morpheme
A morpheme is the smallest unit of linguistic meaning, so for example, the word works contains two morphemes, the lexical stem work and the grammatical morpheme –s which marks the 3rd person singular simple present tense form.

Morphology
The grammatical structure of words (ie the morphemes they are made up of).

Naturalistic
Refers to acquiring the target language through living and working in the country where it is spoken, with little or no formal instruction. 

Negotiation of meaning
The way in which speakers establish understanding through clarification requests (What do you mean, …?), paraphrasing (Do you mean …?), repeating and checking (Did you say …? So …?).

Output
Language production in speech or writing.

Procedural knowledge
Knowledge that underlies a skill, ie how to do something. It cannot usually be stated and lies outside our conscious awareness. ‘Procedural knowledge lies behind complex actions and typically is rather resistant to attempts to make it conscious; try explaining to someone how to tie one’s shoe-laces – it’s much easier to show than to tell.’ (Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 2nd edition).

Salient
Noticeable, easy to spot, easy for the brain to process.

Semantics
Having to do with meaning.

Sociolinguistic competence
Knowledge of how to use language appropriately in different social settings within a given culture.

Syntax
The order of words and the relationships between them.

Unmarked
A linguistic feature is said to be ‘unmarked’ in relation to another linguistic feature, when it is in some way more general and more basic in a given language or languages.

2.7  References

Braidi, S (1999) The Acquisition of Second Language Syntax, Arnold, London
Broady, E and L’Huillier, M (2002) Error analysis and verbal protocols, paper presented at BAAL/CUP Conference on Linguistic Development of French, July 2002, University of Southampton
Brown, R (1973) A First Language, Penguin, Harmondsworth
Cook, V (1993) Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, Macmillan, London
Cook, V (2001) Second Language Learning and Language Teaching, 3rd edn, Arnold, London
Deacon, T (1997) The Symbolic Species, Penguin, Harmondsworth
DeKeyser, R (1998) Beyond focus on form: cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar, in Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, eds C Doughty and J Williams, pp 42–63, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
DeKeyser, R (2001) Automaticity and automatization, in Cognition and Second Language Instruction, ed P Robinson, pp 125–51, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 
Devitt, S (1993) French: its Acquisition as a Second Language, Authentik, Dublin
Doughty, C and Williams, J (1998) Pedagogical choices in focus on form, in Focus on Form in Classroom Second language Acquisition, eds C Doughty and J Williams, pp 197–261, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Dulay, H, Burt, M and Krashen, S (1982) Language Two, Oxford University Press, New York
Ellis, N C (1994) The Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, Academic Press, London
Ellis, R (1989) Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 305–28
Ellis, R (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ellis, R (1998) Second Language Acquisition Research and Pedagogy, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gass, S and Selinker, L (1994) Second Language Acquisition: An introductory course, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove
Green, P and Hecht, K-H (1992) Implicit and explicit grammar: an empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13, 168–84
Howard, M (2002) L’acquisition de l’imparfait par l’apprenant avancé du français langue étrangère, paper delivered at AFLS Workshop on L’Imparfait, Spring 2002
Johnson, K (1996) Language Teaching and Skill Learning, Blackwell, Oxford
Kellerman, E (1977) Towards a characterization of the strategies of transfer in second language learning, Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2, 58–145
Kellerman, E (1989) The imperfect condition, in Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity and loss, eds K Hyltenstam and L Obler, pp 87–115, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Klein, W (1986) Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Krashen, S (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Pergamon Press, Oxford
Krashen, S and Terrell, T D (1983) The Natural Approach, Pergamon, Oxford.
Lightbown, P (1983) Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition, in Classroom-oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition, eds H Seliger and M Long, pp 217–43, Newbury House, Rowley, MA
Lightbown, P (1987) Classroom language as input to second language acquisition, in First and Second Language Acquisition Processes, ed C. Pfaff, Newbury House, Rowley
Lightbown, P and Spada, N (1999) How Languages are Learned, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford 
Long, M (1983) Native-speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input, Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–41
Long, M (1991) Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology, in Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective, eds K de Bot, R Ginsberg and C Kramsch, pp 39–52, John Benjamins, Amsterdam
McLaughlin, B (1990) Restructuring, Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 113–28
McLaughlin, B, Rossman, T and McLeod, B (1983) Second language learning: an information-processing perspective, Language Learning, 33 (2), 135–58
Myles, F, Mitchell, R and Hooper, J (1999) Interrogative chunks in French L2, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 49–80
Ochs, E. (1982) Talking to children in Western Samoa, Language in Society, 11, 77–104
Peccei, J (1994) Child Language, Routledge, London
Perdue, C (ed) (1993) Adult Language Acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Pica, T (1983) Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure, Language Learning, 33, 465–97
Pica, T, Young, R and Doughty, C (1987) The impact of interaction on comprehension, TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–58
Pienemann, M (1984) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6 (2), 118–214
Pienemann, M (1989) Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiements and hypotheses, Applied Linguistics, 10, 92–122
Pine, J (1994) The language of primary caregivers, in Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition, eds C Gallaway and B J Richards, pp 15–37, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Pinker, S (1994) The Language Instinct, Penguin, Harmondsworth 
Ringbom, H (1987) The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon
Schmidt, R (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning, Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 17–46
Schmidt, R and Frota, S N (1986) Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese, in Talking to Learn: Conversation in second language acquisition, ed R Day, pp 237–326, Newbury House, Rowley
Singleton, D (1987) Mother and other tongue influence on learner French, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 327–46
Sjoholm, K (1979) Do Finns and Swedish-speaking Finns use different strategies in the learning of English as a foreign language?, in Perception and Production of English, ed R Palmberg, AFTIL Vol 6, Department of English, Abo Akademi
Skehan, P (1996) A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction, Applied Linguistics, 17 (1), 38–62
Skehan, P (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Sorace, A, Gass, S and Selinker, L (1994) Second Language Learning Data Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove
Spada, N (1997) Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: a review of classroom and laboratory research. State of the art article, Language Teaching, 30, 73–87
Swain, M (1985) Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development, in Input in Second Language Acquisition, eds S Gass and C Madden, pp 235–56, Newbury House, Rowley
Towell, R and Hawkins, R (1994) Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon 
Weinert, R (1987) Processes in classroom second language development: the acquisition of negation in German, in Second Language Acquisition in Context, ed R Ellis, pp 83–99, Prentice-Hall, London
Williams, M and Burden, R L (1997) Psychology for Language Teachers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wode, H (1981) Learning a Second Language: An integrated view of language acquisition, Gunter Narr, Tübingen  

2.8  Further reading

Four useful introductions for teachers 
Cook, V (2001) Second Language Learning and Language Teaching, 3rd edn, Arnold, London
Now in its third – and much improved – edition, this book is a classic in the field. It is highly readable and wide-ranging, with good coverage of cognitive aspects of language learning such as memory and comprehension processes. With introductory questions for each section and boxed sections of bullet points for classroom implementation, it is clearly aimed at language teachers. The author is one of the foremost UK 'interpreters' of SLA for language teachers.

Ellis, R (1997) Second Language Acquisition, Oxford Introductions to Language Study, Oxford University Press, Oxford
A pocket-sized introduction to SLA issues, the strength of this accessible book is its links to current research. Extracts from key articles are reproduced at the back of the book introduced by focus questions. This allows the reader to quickly get a flavour of the range of views and perspectives which make up the SLA community and the essential issues under debate. Rod Ellis' research work has been central to the major SLA debates over the last twenty years or so; he is also a prolific textbook author, producing the key textbooks in this area. This book provides a useful glossary of key terms.

Lightbown, P and Spada, N (1999) How Languages are Learned, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Another excellent introduction, clearly aimed at teachers. An enjoyable read, this short text provides very good coverage of the big research questions in SLA and lots of data for analysis. It is written by two of the most prominent North American researchers and refers extensively, but accessibly, to research findings in order to allow teachers themselves to see the kind of empirical support available for various pedagogic approaches. This book provides a useful glossary of key terms.

Littlewood, W (1984) Foreign and Second Language Learning: Language acquisition and its implications for the classroom, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Even though it was written almost two decades ago, this straightforward book remains a useful introduction to the key issues for teachers from work in SLA. Although further theorizing and research work has since been conducted on issues such as the relationship between implicit and explicit learning, the basics established in the 1970s and 1980s are still valid today. Because of its balanced and insightful discussion, this book does not come across as significantly outdated.

Other useful textbooks with specific strengths

Encyclopedic coverage
Ellis, R (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford University Press, Oxford
No bibliography on SLA would be complete without a reference to this impressive tome (824 pages!). It was published in 1994 and provides an encyclopedic coverage of research in SLA up until that time. Yes, important work has been done since, but no other source published since provides such thorough coverage of the SLA literature. Vital as a starting point for any small-scale research in the general area of SLA.

Textbook with exercises
Gass, S and Selinker, L (1994) Second Language Acquisition: An introductory course, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove
	A useful introductory textbook because of the exercises associated with each chapter, many of which present tasks based on data from published research projects, mostly from North American contexts.

Strong anchoring in a study of learner language within a European context
Klein, W (1986) Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 
An unjustifiably neglected textbook, Wolfgang Klein’s readable introduction to SLA takes the learner’s four tasks (see 2.1.1.1) as its central focus and explores each one in depth, based on detailed discussion of interlanguage data mainly from the European Science Foundation project.

An integrated model, based on different theoretical perspectives
Towell, R and Hawkins, R (1994) Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon
Not an easy introductory textbook, but an attempt to establish the ‘givens’ of SLA and review the explanatory merits of different theoretical perspectives and their empirical bases, leading to a sketch for an integrated model.

2.9  Assessed Tasks

Select one of the following tasks.

Assessed Task 1 
Select a learner, if possible at intermediate level or above. Make a recording of an interview with your learner in the target language. Transcribe the interview and analyse your learner’s interlanguage in terms of its characteristic features, using the areas discussed in Section 1 to guide your discussion, ie:

•	The primary of lexis (section 2.1.2): does your learner’s interlanguage suggest a primarily lexical approach, with less attention paid to morphology?
•	Grammaticization (section 2.1.2): To what extent is your learner starting to ‘grammaticize’? Which grammatical features are present? Which grammatical features are problematic? Is there evidence of overgeneralization of grammatical features?
•	Staged development (section 2.1.4): Does any of the evidence on staged development in second language acquisition help shed light of any of your learner’s problems? (You may well not be in a position to answer this).
•	Chunks and formulae (section 2.1.5): is there any evidence of your learner using chunks?
•	Cross-linguistic influence (section 2.1.6): What evidence is there of cross-linguistic influence? Do the concepts of markedness and psychotypology shed any light on why the cross-linguistic influence may have occurred on that particular item/area of language?

Assessed Task 2
Record (using audio or video) a language class, preferably your own. Based on your recording and accompanying lesson plans, handouts, etc, analyse the different learning activities which made up the class in terms of the different kinds of language learning processes and approaches reviewed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3. 
Given what you now know about SLA, explain how this lesson contributed to the learners’ development of a second language. Can you suggest any areas for change in order to make the lesson more effective? Try to explain any suggestions in terms of the SLA issues discussed in this module.